MSNBC Panel: Little Hope’ Zimmerman Will Be Convi

[Vox]

With the state of public school systems in this country the lack of basic biology knowledge is obvious.

It is not even the forensics - it is just a very basic knowledge, that DNA could be samplified from the tissue ( or cells) and it is not shed around like pet's dander and is not identified easily.
They had not been able to reliably identify blood on Trayvon's sweatshirt, which is as much DNA sample as one can get, and some here want to "find DNA on T or Z to prove scuffle". It may support the notion of scuffle if found but if DNA is not found it does not mean there was no scuffle - it is not a negative proof, it is only a positive proof if it exists.

 

[Vox]

[

Sadly, Joe doesn't want to look at the actual facts or evidence in this case.
He has admitted that the only fact that counts is that Trayvon is dead, and Zimmerman killed him....therefore, Zimmerman is guilty of murder.
You can come to this conclusion as long as you don't admit there is other evidence to the contrary.
Joe is running on emotion....no more than emotion. I quit debating with him because he can't get past his emotion.

Guy, no emotion at all.

You could present me with this kind of evidence, but it's all based on trusting the word of Zimmerman, a proven liar. In fact, you have no evidence that isn't based on trusting ZImmerman's word.

If Zimmerman started the fight, he's guilty of murder. Or at the least, manslaughter.

This guy is not worth a race riot.

in a ghetto justice system, but not in a criminal justice system of this country

 

[JoeB131]

[


Dude, he was not RAPING him, so DNA evidence is almost irrelevant - especially considering the circumstances.

Do you at least know when DNA evidence is paramount? and what it is? seems like you are just repeating the syllables without understanding the meaning.

Unless Zimmerman clawed Trayvon with his fingernails, why would there be any Zimmerman DNA on Trayvon. I've never heard that they could life DNA of another person from your skin. I would imagine your own DNA would so contaminate the sample that it would be difficult to detect DNA from another person.

Joe keeps talking about throwing shit against the wall to see if it sticks, but almost everything he posts is an example of exactly that.

Replying to two morons in a group.

Zimmerman was shaven bald. Therefore, he had no hair for Trayvon to grab onto.

For Trayvon to be giving this guy such a beating that he was in fear for his life (supposedly) he had had to have gotten a good grip on him to be "slamming his head against the sidewalk".

yet despite these supposed injuries, despite having this supposed grip on the guy, there's no trace of Zimmerman on Trayvon's body.

In fact, the only evidence he ran into Zimmerman at all is the big hole Zimmerman put into his chest.

 

[TemplarKormac]

[

Joe, I have something called "a brain". I take the time to exercise it a great deal more often than you. I don't have time to sit around and ignore reality all day like you apparently do.

The defense has completely blown the prosecution out of the water. You say there is no physical evidence? Did you not see the photographs of Zimmerman's injuries? Did you see all of the witnesses corroborate his claim?

No. Of course you didn't. I'm sorry to have taken you away from your "job".

Actually, the Defense threw a bunch of shit at the wall, and the cops are boobs.

Sorry, a few owies don't prove that a guy who had trained 3 days a week at a mixed martial arts place was in any real danger.

Where's Martin's DNA on his person? Where is his NDA on Martin? That's physical evidence of a scuffle.

Now, I know why you gun fetishist want Zimmerman to be innocent when he is obviously guilty- (HELLOOOOOO, Trayvon is still dead!) He's living the what you guys dream about, "excercising" your second amendment right.

Lol, Joe. I'm sorry. Are you this blind and naive on purpose?

Actually, it was the prosecution throwing shit at the wall. They called so many suspect witnesses that it would constitute a remake of Con Air!

Those were a "few owies" that Ms. Rao said could have become fatal had Trayvon been allowed to continue beating Zimmerman.

DNA is circumstantial evidence. The expert acknowledged that the samples could have been tainted or washed away completely by the wet weather they were in that night. Or were you paying attention to that? It has no impact on the case.

You are a base amateur. You cannot fathom why a man can defend himself from bodily harm, you cannot possibly step outside that shelled mind of yours to think just for a split second that his Second Amendment rights saved his life. One thing you are also incapable of doing is actually looking beyond the racial undertones of this case being fed to you by your party. You are being led like a dog on a leash, is it because you have a domination fetish of some type?

 

[squeeze berry]

[

Sadly, Joe doesn't want to look at the actual facts or evidence in this case.
He has admitted that the only fact that counts is that Trayvon is dead, and Zimmerman killed him....therefore, Zimmerman is guilty of murder.
You can come to this conclusion as long as you don't admit there is other evidence to the contrary.
Joe is running on emotion....no more than emotion. I quit debating with him because he can't get past his emotion.

Guy, no emotion at all.

You could present me with this kind of evidence, but it's all based on trusting the word of Zimmerman, a proven liar. In fact, you have no evidence that isn't based on trusting ZImmerman's word.

If Zimmerman started the fight, he's guilty of murder. Or at the least, manslaughter.

This guy is not worth a race riot.

neither is Martin

and thanks for admitting there will be race riots

 

[JoeB131]

[

Sadly, Joe doesn't want to look at the actual facts or evidence in this case.
He has admitted that the only fact that counts is that Trayvon is dead, and Zimmerman killed him....therefore, Zimmerman is guilty of murder.
You can come to this conclusion as long as you don't admit there is other evidence to the contrary.
Joe is running on emotion....no more than emotion. I quit debating with him because he can't get past his emotion.

Guy, no emotion at all.

You could present me with this kind of evidence, but it's all based on trusting the word of Zimmerman, a proven liar. In fact, you have no evidence that isn't based on trusting ZImmerman's word.

If Zimmerman started the fight, he's guilty of murder. Or at the least, manslaughter.

This guy is not worth a race riot.

in a ghetto justice system, but not in a criminal justice system of this country

Again, can you honestly tell me that if Zimmerman were black, and Trayvon were white, you'd be arguing so vehemently?

If ZImmerman is acquitted by an all-white jury of killing a black child, you'd bet your ass there will be riots.

 

[Sallow]

[

Joe, I have something called "a brain". I take the time to exercise it a great deal more often than you. I don't have time to sit around and ignore reality all day like you apparently do.

The defense has completely blown the prosecution out of the water. You say there is no physical evidence? Did you not see the photographs of Zimmerman's injuries? Did you see all of the witnesses corroborate his claim?

No. Of course you didn't. I'm sorry to have taken you away from your "job".

Actually, the Defense threw a bunch of shit at the wall, and the cops are boobs.

Sorry, a few owies don't prove that a guy who had trained 3 days a week at a mixed martial arts place was in any real danger.

Where's Martin's DNA on his person? Where is his NDA on Martin? That's physical evidence of a scuffle.

Now, I know why you gun fetishist want Zimmerman to be innocent when he is obviously guilty- (HELLOOOOOO, Trayvon is still dead!) He's living the what you guys dream about, "excercising" your second amendment right.

Dude, he was not RAPING him, so DNA evidence is almost irrelevant - especially considering the circumstances.

Do you at least know when DNA evidence is paramount? and what it is? seems like you are just repeating the syllables without understanding the meaning.

Actually..it isn't.

It refutes key points of Zimmerman's story.

The DNA on the gun is a mute point. It's a granted that Zimmerman's DNA was on it and it would have help Zimmerman if there were Martin's DNA on it..but it was a rainy night and it was unlikely that any DNA from Martin would stay on the gun.

However, the crucial DNA transference would have been to Martin's hands and sleeves. If the beating were as violent as Zimmerman describes, Martin's fingernails and sleeves would have shown that.

It didn't.

Putting that together with the fact that the EMT personnel treated Zimmerman for insignificant wounds, no one saw a need for Zimmerman to visit the hospital, there's video evidence that Zimmerman suffered no lasting effects from the fight and the testimony of the Forensic pathologist that points out that none of Zimmerman's injuries were life threatening, it makes the "reasonable" use of lethal force defensive measures, a whole lot less reasonable.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Sadly, Joe doesn't want to look at the actual facts or evidence in this case.
He has admitted that the only fact that counts is that Trayvon is dead, and Zimmerman killed him....therefore, Zimmerman is guilty of murder.
You can come to this conclusion as long as you don't admit there is other evidence to the contrary.
Joe is running on emotion....no more than emotion. I quit debating with him because he can't get past his emotion.

Guy, no emotion at all.

You could present me with this kind of evidence, but it's all based on trusting the word of Zimmerman, a proven liar. In fact, you have no evidence that isn't based on trusting ZImmerman's word.

If Zimmerman started the fight, he's guilty of murder. Or at the least, manslaughter.

This guy is not worth a race riot.

neither is Martin

and thanks for admitting there will be race riots

Oh, I have no doubt there will be.

 

[Vox]

Guy, no emotion at all.

You could present me with this kind of evidence, but it's all based on trusting the word of Zimmerman, a proven liar. In fact, you have no evidence that isn't based on trusting ZImmerman's word.

If Zimmerman started the fight, he's guilty of murder. Or at the least, manslaughter.

This guy is not worth a race riot.

in a ghetto justice system, but not in a criminal justice system of this country

Again, can you honestly tell me that if Zimmerman were black, and Trayvon were white, you'd be arguing so vehemently?

If ZImmerman is acquitted by an all-white jury of killing a black child, you'd bet your ass there will be riots.

Of course I can. Z is a liberal democrat, it is much worse than "being black" )))
And he has a black grandmother.

The problem here is not a race. The MSM played the race card to hide their main agenda - the war on guns. i can bet that if Z stabbed T with a knife in his self-defense nobody would ever hear about this case.

Riots will damage AA community the most.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

If there are race riots, MSNBC staff should be tried for inciting them.

 

[TemplarKormac]

[

Sadly, Joe doesn't want to look at the actual facts or evidence in this case.
He has admitted that the only fact that counts is that Trayvon is dead, and Zimmerman killed him....therefore, Zimmerman is guilty of murder.
You can come to this conclusion as long as you don't admit there is other evidence to the contrary.
Joe is running on emotion....no more than emotion. I quit debating with him because he can't get past his emotion.

Guy, no emotion at all.

You could present me with this kind of evidence, but it's all based on trusting the word of Zimmerman, a proven liar. In fact, you have no evidence that isn't based on trusting ZImmerman's word.

If Zimmerman started the fight, he's guilty of murder. Or at the least, manslaughter.

This guy is not worth a race riot.

Joe, that is exactly your problem. You let your emotions get in the way of reality. I've seen you repeatedly do it. You've done it here. It's funny how you don't give a damn about all of the black kids in your hometown who have been shot and killed in your lifetime, but you give all of a damn about Trayvon. Don't sit there and lie to me. But oh no, Zimmerman has to be a racist! Your entire world will come crashing down if he isn't! Joe, you've had so many changes of heart that you've lost your soul in the process.

Oh yes, Meister has more evidence based on witness testimony, which CORROBORATES Zimmerman's word. You have your talking points. You're making it no easier on yourself.

 

[Vox]

Actually, the Defense threw a bunch of shit at the wall, and the cops are boobs.

Sorry, a few owies don't prove that a guy who had trained 3 days a week at a mixed martial arts place was in any real danger.

Where's Martin's DNA on his person? Where is his NDA on Martin? That's physical evidence of a scuffle.

Now, I know why you gun fetishist want Zimmerman to be innocent when he is obviously guilty- (HELLOOOOOO, Trayvon is still dead!) He's living the what you guys dream about, "excercising" your second amendment right.

Dude, he was not RAPING him, so DNA evidence is almost irrelevant - especially considering the circumstances.

Do you at least know when DNA evidence is paramount? and what it is? seems like you are just repeating the syllables without understanding the meaning.

Actually..it isn't.

It refutes key points of Zimmerman's story.

The DNA on the gun is a mute point. It's a granted that Zimmerman's DNA was on it and it would have help Zimmerman if there were Martin's DNA on it..but it was a rainy night and it was unlikely that any DNA from Martin would stay on the gun.

However, the crucial DNA transference would have been to Martin's hands and sleeves. If the beating were as violent as Zimmerman describes, Martin's fingernails and sleeves would have shown that.

It didn't.

Putting that together with the fact that the EMT personnel treated Zimmerman for insignificant wounds, no one saw a need for Zimmerman to visit the hospital, there's video evidence that Zimmerman suffered no lasting effects from the fight and the testimony of the Forensic pathologist that points out that none of Zimmerman's injuries were life threatening, it makes the "reasonable" use of lethal force defensive measures, a whole lot less reasonable.

Actually it does not refute anything. Not in this case, where there are witnesses to the most important claims on part of Z and they support his claims of self-defense.

Learn some basic biology first.

Then I can provide you some links to forensic pathology for further education.

 

[Sallow]

Dude, he was not RAPING him, so DNA evidence is almost irrelevant - especially considering the circumstances.

Do you at least know when DNA evidence is paramount? and what it is? seems like you are just repeating the syllables without understanding the meaning.

Actually..it isn't.

It refutes key points of Zimmerman's story.

The DNA on the gun is a mute point. It's a granted that Zimmerman's DNA was on it and it would have help Zimmerman if there were Martin's DNA on it..but it was a rainy night and it was unlikely that any DNA from Martin would stay on the gun.

However, the crucial DNA transference would have been to Martin's hands and sleeves. If the beating were as violent as Zimmerman describes, Martin's fingernails and sleeves would have shown that.

It didn't.

Putting that together with the fact that the EMT personnel treated Zimmerman for insignificant wounds, no one saw a need for Zimmerman to visit the hospital, there's video evidence that Zimmerman suffered no lasting effects from the fight and the testimony of the Forensic pathologist that points out that none of Zimmerman's injuries were life threatening, it makes the "reasonable" use of lethal force defensive measures, a whole lot less reasonable.

Actually it does not refute anything. Not in this case, where there are witnesses to the most important claims on part of Z.

Learn some basic biology first.

Then I can provide you some links to forensic pathology for further education.

Telling me to "learn basic biology first" instead of deconstructing the post is basically just as good as waving a white flag.

Had the evidence been specious it would not have been allowed to be entered.

That's not the case.

People with the proper accreditation were allowed to testify. And the defense was allowed to cross examine.

The prosecution made the same exact points that I posted in this thread.

 

[squeeze berry]

Actually, the Defense threw a bunch of shit at the wall, and the cops are boobs.

Sorry, a few owies don't prove that a guy who had trained 3 days a week at a mixed martial arts place was in any real danger.

Where's Martin's DNA on his person? Where is his NDA on Martin? That's physical evidence of a scuffle.

Now, I know why you gun fetishist want Zimmerman to be innocent when he is obviously guilty- (HELLOOOOOO, Trayvon is still dead!) He's living the what you guys dream about, "excercising" your second amendment right.

Dude, he was not RAPING him, so DNA evidence is almost irrelevant - especially considering the circumstances.

Do you at least know when DNA evidence is paramount? and what it is? seems like you are just repeating the syllables without understanding the meaning.

Actually..it isn't.

It refutes key points of Zimmerman's story.

The DNA on the gun is a mute point. It's a granted that Zimmerman's DNA was on it and it would have help Zimmerman if there were Martin's DNA on it..but it was a rainy night and it was unlikely that any DNA from Martin would stay on the gun.

However, the crucial DNA transference would have been to Martin's hands and sleeves. If the beating were as violent as Zimmerman describes, Martin's fingernails and sleeves would have shown that.

It didn't.

Putting that together with the fact that the EMT personnel treated Zimmerman for insignificant wounds, no one saw a need for Zimmerman to visit the hospital, there's video evidence that Zimmerman suffered no lasting effects from the fight and the testimony of the Forensic pathologist that points out that none of Zimmerman's injuries were life threatening, it makes the "reasonable" use of lethal force defensive measures, a whole lot less reasonable.

absence of DNA = non-conclusive

 

[JoeB131]

[

Of course I can. Z is a liberal democrat, it is much worse than "being black" )))
And he has a black grandmother.

The problem here is not a race. The MSM played the race card to hide their main agenda - the war on guns. i can bet that if Z stabbed T with a knife in his self-defense nobody would ever hear about this case.

Riots will damage AA community the most.

No, the problem here is that Florida has insane laws that allow people to be shot in the street by would-be vigilantes with illegal guns.

Oh, yeah. that's right. Zimmerman did not have a concealed carry permit.

So let's review, shall we.

Zimmerman follows Trayvon with a illegal gun.
Disobeys a directive to not follow him.
Instigates some kind of confrontation where he leaves the kid dead.
Lies to investigators about it.
Lies to a judge about it.

Why, gosh darn, Cleetus we totally need to give him a pass.

 

[squeeze berry]

Guy, no emotion at all.

You could present me with this kind of evidence, but it's all based on trusting the word of Zimmerman, a proven liar. In fact, you have no evidence that isn't based on trusting ZImmerman's word.

If Zimmerman started the fight, he's guilty of murder. Or at the least, manslaughter.

This guy is not worth a race riot.

in a ghetto justice system, but not in a criminal justice system of this country

Again, can you honestly tell me that if Zimmerman were black, and Trayvon were white, you'd be arguing so vehemently?

If ZImmerman is acquitted by an all-white jury of killing a black child, you'd bet your ass there will be riots.

playing the race card ^

 

[OODA_Loop]

Oh, yeah. that's right. Zimmerman did not have a concealed carry permit.

Activists Demand Florida Gov. Suspend George Zimmerman's Gun Permit

 

[Vox]

Actually..it isn't.

It refutes key points of Zimmerman's story.

The DNA on the gun is a mute point. It's a granted that Zimmerman's DNA was on it and it would have help Zimmerman if there were Martin's DNA on it..but it was a rainy night and it was unlikely that any DNA from Martin would stay on the gun.

However, the crucial DNA transference would have been to Martin's hands and sleeves. If the beating were as violent as Zimmerman describes, Martin's fingernails and sleeves would have shown that.

It didn't.

Putting that together with the fact that the EMT personnel treated Zimmerman for insignificant wounds, no one saw a need for Zimmerman to visit the hospital, there's video evidence that Zimmerman suffered no lasting effects from the fight and the testimony of the Forensic pathologist that points out that none of Zimmerman's injuries were life threatening, it makes the "reasonable" use of lethal force defensive measures, a whole lot less reasonable.

Actually it does not refute anything. Not in this case, where there are witnesses to the most important claims on part of Z.

Learn some basic biology first.

Then I can provide you some links to forensic pathology for further education.

Telling me to "learn basic biology first" instead of deconstructing the post is basically just as good as waving a white flag.

Had the evidence been specious it would not have been allowed to be entered.

That's not the case.

People with the proper accreditation were allowed to testify. And the defense was allowed to cross examine.

The prosecution made the same exact points that I posted in this thread.

there is nothing to deconstruct. Numerous people here already told you that DNA evidence is irrelevant in this case. It is not a raping case or paternity determination, or identifying the unknown remains.

Learn the basic biology first and you will understand when and where DNA evidence IS relevant.

 

[Sallow]

Guy, no emotion at all.

You could present me with this kind of evidence, but it's all based on trusting the word of Zimmerman, a proven liar. In fact, you have no evidence that isn't based on trusting ZImmerman's word.

If Zimmerman started the fight, he's guilty of murder. Or at the least, manslaughter.

This guy is not worth a race riot.

in a ghetto justice system, but not in a criminal justice system of this country

Again, can you honestly tell me that if Zimmerman were black, and Trayvon were white, you'd be arguing so vehemently?

If ZImmerman is acquitted by an all-white jury of killing a black child, you'd bet your ass there will be riots.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZgHOh6wPUk]Epic beard man 67 year old beating the crap out of some dude on the bus - YouTube[/ame]

I've posted this video several times because it pretty much mirrors the events that happened in the Zimmerman case pretty nicely.

Except the fellow that would have been Martin is white and the fellow that would have been Zimmerman is black.

The black fellow was beaten far worse than Zimmerman and no one contends that the fellow would have been justified in using lethal force.

And notice the behavior of the white fellow after the fight is done. He's agitated and upset.

That wasn't the case with Zimmerman.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Dude, he was not RAPING him, so DNA evidence is almost irrelevant - especially considering the circumstances.

Do you at least know when DNA evidence is paramount? and what it is? seems like you are just repeating the syllables without understanding the meaning.

Actually..it isn't.

It refutes key points of Zimmerman's story.

The DNA on the gun is a mute point. It's a granted that Zimmerman's DNA was on it and it would have help Zimmerman if there were Martin's DNA on it..but it was a rainy night and it was unlikely that any DNA from Martin would stay on the gun.

However, the crucial DNA transference would have been to Martin's hands and sleeves. If the beating were as violent as Zimmerman describes, Martin's fingernails and sleeves would have shown that.

It didn't.

Putting that together with the fact that the EMT personnel treated Zimmerman for insignificant wounds, no one saw a need for Zimmerman to visit the hospital, there's video evidence that Zimmerman suffered no lasting effects from the fight and the testimony of the Forensic pathologist that points out that none of Zimmerman's injuries were life threatening, it makes the "reasonable" use of lethal force defensive measures, a whole lot less reasonable.

Actually it does not refute anything. Not in this case, where there are witnesses to the most important claims on part of Z and they support his claims of self-defense.

Learn some basic biology first.

Then I can provide you some links to forensic pathology for further education.

The correct term is "rebut" not "refute",

Refute means to confirm or back up with proof. Rebut means to disprove by that same proof, to render another argument fallacious, incorrect or irrelevant.

Perhaps Sallow should learn some proper English before he lectures anyone on Forensic Pathology. He also needs to understand that the witness who dubbed those wounds as "insignificant" was a Medical Examiner appointed by Corey herself, the woman who served that bogus arrest warrant on Zimmerman.

Sallow also fails to point out that this same witness was forced to acknowledge that these injuries could have become fatal, had Martin been allowed to continue wailing on Mr. Zimmerman.