MSNBC Panel: Little Hope’ Zimmerman Will Be Convi

[Sallow]

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.

Doesn't matter what numerous people on a message board have said.

It's been entered into evidence.

The jury now has to consider it.

You may want to learn about how our legal system works.

 

[OODA_Loop]

What does the DNA prove ?

 

[Vox]

[

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.

ah, now we are talking.

yes, I know that the Second is the main goal of all this false pretentious outrage.

but it is not going to happen, so give it a rest.

The law is good, the guns are legal, Z had the CC permit and a legal gun.


tell, me, would you be so outraged if Z was black and T - white?

 

[Sallow]

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.

Take your own advice, professor.

re·fute

/riˈfyo͞ot/
Verb


1.Prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
2.Prove that (someone) is wrong.

Synonyms
rebut - confute - disprove - deny - negative - contradict

 

[JoeB131]

[

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.

I do give a darn about the kids killed in this city. But you have to fix the whole country to solve that problem.

There's no evidence that supports Zimmerman's version of events except Zimmerman's word.

Unfortunately, Trayvon isn't around to give us HIS version of events.

The point is, Zimmerman made a bout a dozen dumb decisions before he got into the confrontation.

He chose to go out that night with an ILLEGAL gun.
He disobeyed the direct order from the dispatcher NOT to follow.
He failed to identfy himself as Community Watch at any time.

but we are going to take his word for it that Trayvon threw the first punch, that he was in fear for his life (despite having no serious injuries and no transference of DNA) and has been caught lying all throughout this case?

Seriously?

 

[Vox]

What does the DNA prove ?

In this case - nothing. Neither does it prove, nor disprove.

It is irrelevant.

 

[Sallow]

What does the DNA prove ?

That Zimmerman's statements were not accurate.

 

[OODA_Loop]

What does the DNA prove ?

That Zimmerman's statements were not accurate.

How so ?

 

[Vox]

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.

Doesn't matter what numerous people on a message board have said.

It's been entered into evidence.

The jury now has to consider it.

You may want to learn about how our legal system works.

It does not matter. Jury is guided by the judge and the judge knows which evidence is important and which lack of evidence is not.

 

[JoeB131]

[

ah, now we are talking.

yes, I know that the Second is the main goal of all this false pretentious outrage.

but it is not going to happen, so give it a rest.

The law is good, the guns are legal, Z had the CC permit and a legal gun.


tell, me, would you be so outraged if Z was black and T - white?

I would be outraged if any child were killed by an asshole who thinks he's The Punisher.

 

[Vox]

What does the DNA prove ?

That Zimmerman's statements were not accurate.

wishful thinking. It does not prove or disprove anything

 

[Vox]

[

ah, now we are talking.

yes, I know that the Second is the main goal of all this false pretentious outrage.

but it is not going to happen, so give it a rest.

The law is good, the guns are legal, Z had the CC permit and a legal gun.


tell, me, would you be so outraged if Z was black and T - white?

I would be outraged if any child were killed by an asshole who thinks he's The Punisher.

which is not the case here

 

[Sallow]

What does the DNA prove ?

That Zimmerman's statements were not accurate.

wishful thinking. It does not prove or disprove anything

Taken alone? Maybe not.

But as a piece in the puzzle? It does.

When you sat on a jury, did you guys just look at the evidence and all decide that one piece of it was "irrelevant" or did you guys deliberate?

 

[OODA_Loop]

That Zimmerman's statements were not accurate.

wishful thinking. It does not prove or disprove anything

Taken alone? Maybe not.

But as a piece in the puzzle? It does.

When you sat on a jury, did you guys just look at the evidence and all decide that one piece of it was "irrelevant" or did you guys deliberate?

How does the DNA piece fit the puzzle ?

 

[TemplarKormac]

That Zimmerman's statements were not accurate.

wishful thinking. It does not prove or disprove anything

Taken alone? Maybe not.

But as a piece in the puzzle? It does.

When you sat on a jury, did you guys just look at the evidence and all decide that one piece of it was "irrelevant" or did you guys deliberate?

Juries are instructed as to what is and isn't relevant to the case. Bet you didn't know that, did you?

 

[Sallow]

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.

Doesn't matter what numerous people on a message board have said.

It's been entered into evidence.

The jury now has to consider it.

You may want to learn about how our legal system works.

It does not matter. Jury is guided by the judge and the judge knows which evidence is important and which lack of evidence is not.

It was entered in as an exhibit.

You do know what that means, correct?

 

[Sallow]

wishful thinking. It does not prove or disprove anything

Taken alone? Maybe not.

But as a piece in the puzzle? It does.

When you sat on a jury, did you guys just look at the evidence and all decide that one piece of it was "irrelevant" or did you guys deliberate?

Juries are instructed as to what is and isn't relevant to the case. Bet you didn't know that, did you?

They toss out this evidence?

I must of missed that.

You have a link?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Doesn't matter what numerous people on a message board have said.

It's been entered into evidence.

The jury now has to consider it.

You may want to learn about how our legal system works.

It does not matter. Jury is guided by the judge and the judge knows which evidence is important and which lack of evidence is not.

It was entered in as an exhibit.

You do know what that means, correct?

Absolutely nothing. Other than it bored everyone in the courtroom half to death.

 

[OODA_Loop]

It was entered in as an exhibit.

To prove what ?

 

[Vox]

Doesn't matter what numerous people on a message board have said.

It's been entered into evidence.

The jury now has to consider it.

You may want to learn about how our legal system works.

It does not matter. Jury is guided by the judge and the judge knows which evidence is important and which lack of evidence is not.

It was entered in as an exhibit.

You do know what that means, correct?

it does not matter. evidence differ. irrelevant evidence as this is not going to overturn the direct evidence of the eye-witness - and that is what the judge instructs on the jury