Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That stuff has been like that ever since that uppity nigga, rosa parks got on a bus.
This isn't uppity niggas this is butt covering election first politician piece of shit ignaramoues.
I was talking about uppity niggas like al sharpton, jesse jackson. Martin luther king, medgar evers, duh.
You know what's odd, and it's quite possible that the prosecution will absolutely blow this trial just like Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden did at the OJ Simpson trial when they asked OJ to pull that shriveled golf glove onto his hand, but this is my point:
This is what an abrasion looks like if your skin is dragged across a surface like a cement sidewalk:
Zimmerman had two 3/4" cuts on the back of his head that didn't require sutures. And even looks like he could have reached around with a razor and done it himself. Now....who would ever think to wound themselves in the aftermath of shooting somebody without any proof that it was self defense?
Well, besides someone who was charged with assault on a police officer in 2005?
First of all...nobody has stated that George Zimmerman was "dragged across a surface". His testimony is that his head was slammed against the cement. If Zimmerman DID have abrasions that look like what you pictured it would make his testimony suspect. The injuries that Zimmerman DID have are consistent with injuries that one would expect from the attack that GZ says happened.
Secondly...did you REALLY just propose that Zimmerman cut himself with a razor to create those cuts in the back of his head? That's got to one of the stupidest things I've heard on here. What did he use to accomplish this...where did this "razor" go once he had finished cutting himself...and when did he have time to do this with witnesses on the scene almost IMMEDIATELY following the gunshot.
As for the charge of assault on a police officer? It was a charge that was dropped. Why? Because while pushing away an undercover officer's arm when you don't realize that they ARE a police officer is technically assault...it's such a pathetic example that to charge someone for doing so is completely over the top...which is why it was changed to a lesser charge.
The DNA guy is really good for the prosecution. West is objecting to some weird thing already.
The forensic pathologist that couldn't see the injuries in the photos of Zimmerman? Even that idiot said that the injuries were consistent with his head hitting the ground, possibly more than once. You are still the only person in the universe that doesn't believe that little fact.
The defense was trying to say that the natural shape of Zimmerman's head..was an injury.
Not the way it looked to everyone else in the universe, but thanks for playing "Lets say something really stupid in order to look dumber than dog shit."
You are missing my point.
Those prosecutors need a couple of ER docs as expert witnesses to show how injuries are sustained. They see people every day who have been beat up in fights and know the difference between a wound made by a cut as opposed to skin being abraded by concrete.
That's the statute.
You're one subsection late on the governing statute. The one quoted in your post deals with "home protection," as indicated in the language of its title.
General self defense is covered in 776.012:
Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
View Entire Chapter
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the others imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
You are missing my point.
Those prosecutors need a couple of ER docs as expert witnesses to show how injuries are sustained. They see people every day who have been beat up in fights and know the difference between a wound made by a cut as opposed to skin being abraded by concrete.
With all due respect, they have put on medical testimony stating that the wounds are consistant with the head striking concrete. Honestly, if it is really necessary for you to imagine a scenario where GZ uses a razor blade to self inflict injuries when witnesses were on the scene within a few seconds after the shot was fired and the police were there within 15-30 seconds and no razor blade is found on the scene or on GZ and not medical testimony is even suggested other than by yourself... well, you are admitting the weakness of the prosecutions case and complaining about them not putting on evidence that you have no factual basis for believing exists...
You really don't get the way it works, do you, swallow?
You are sooo hot in that new avatar.
You are never hot in anything.
Cool hat....and its him...so pretty cool in my book...beats glittering cartoons of alter egos of yesteryear
You know what's odd, and it's quite possible that the prosecution will absolutely blow this trial just like Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden did at the OJ Simpson trial when they asked OJ to pull that shriveled golf glove onto his hand, but this is my point:
This is what an abrasion looks like if your skin is dragged across a surface like a cement sidewalk:
Zimmerman had two 3/4" cuts on the back of his head that didn't require sutures. And even looks like he could have reached around with a razor and done it himself. Now....who would ever think to wound themselves in the aftermath of shooting somebody without any proof that it was self defense?
Well, besides someone who was charged with assault on a police officer in 2005?
First of all...nobody has stated that George Zimmerman was "dragged across a surface". His testimony is that his head was slammed against the cement. If Zimmerman DID have abrasions that look like what you pictured it would make his testimony suspect. The injuries that Zimmerman DID have are consistent with injuries that one would expect from the attack that GZ says happened.
Secondly...did you REALLY just propose that Zimmerman cut himself with a razor to create those cuts in the back of his head? That's got to one of the stupidest things I've heard on here. What did he use to accomplish this...where did this "razor" go once he had finished cutting himself...and when did he have time to do this with witnesses on the scene almost IMMEDIATELY following the gunshot.
As for the charge of assault on a police officer? It was a charge that was dropped. Why? Because while pushing away an undercover officer's arm when you don't realize that they ARE a police officer is technically assault...it's such a pathetic example that to charge someone for doing so is completely over the top...which is why it was changed to a lesser charge.
There was already testimony that Zimmerman's injuries were minimal.
And I am reasonably sure that the state is proving that Zimmerman wasn't being reasonable.
The DNA guy is really good for the prosecution. West is objecting to some weird thing already.
The Prosecution's case has been such a train wreck, Sarah that you seem to view any witness who doesn't turn into a boon for the defense to be "good for the prosecution". I hate to point out the obvious here but the Prosecution's "case" doesn't seem to exist. Why did this even go to trial? Seriously...
Yeah it's me... sometimes it's better to show your real face so folks know who they are talking too. Course it also gives em something to shoot at.
The prosecution overcharged and they are living to regret it...they had political and social pressure to throw the book.
Manslaughter? Show negligence and let the jury decide
M2? You have to "prove" murder.
The two charges require a totally different approach to the trial. The evidence is not there for M2 and the states own witnesses are proving it.
Instead of there being a realistic shot at GZ serving some time for negligence, he will most likely get off. Personally? I think he should get off for M2? You have the state, who originally did not even arrest him now they are trying to prove murder going in direct contradiction with their own justification for not arresting and charging him in the first place. Sad sad sad.
Geexus. Another one. They charged appropriately. Murder 2. They had to do that because they could not show premeditation on Zimmerman's part AND there was no negligence involved. Zimmerman intentionally pulled the trigger. You cannot charge negligence for an intentional act.
The case should never have been brought. It is a waste of time and money. Their initial response to let Zimmerman go was correct. All of this was foisted on them, probably in part by the Holder Justice Dept.
The DNA guy is really good for the prosecution. West is objecting to some weird thing already.
The Prosecution's case has been such a train wreck, Sarah that you seem to view any witness who doesn't turn into a boon for the defense to be "good for the prosecution". I hate to point out the obvious here but the Prosecution's "case" doesn't seem to exist. Why did this even go to trial? Seriously...
And I am reasonably sure that the state is proving that Zimmerman wasn't being reasonable.
True, they are attempting to do so, and I have no problem with that assertion. I was simply pointing out the correct standard being applied in this case.
You are never hot in anything.
Cool hat....and its him...so pretty cool in my book...beats glittering cartoons of alter egos of yesteryear
Yeah it's me... sometimes it's better to show your real face so folks know who they are talking too. Course it also gives em something to shoot at.
