- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 34,478
- Reaction score
- 17,282
- Location
- Southwestern U.S.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
A pic is worth a thousand words
Definitely, the injuries are consistent with self-defense
Who's defense, Zimmerman's or Martin's?A pic is worth a thousand words
Definitely, the injuries are consistent with self-defense
That was the first blow too, the one that knocked him to the ground.
A pic is worth a thousand words
Definitely, the injuries are consistent with self-defense
No, the injuries are consistent with getting beat up in a fight.
Indeed. In a scuffle anyone can incur injuries--but the why and how they got there is what makes me curious. I just got to follow this trial when it starts.Who's defense, Zimmerman's or Martin's?
This pic might be worth a thousand words, but it only tells half the story.
Congratulations.
That line says it all.
& if youre getting beat up in a fight you have the right to stand your ground & defend yourself.
Not if you instigated the fight and shot because you were losing.
Congratulations.
That line says it all.
& if youre getting beat up in a fight you have the right to stand your ground & defend yourself.
A pic is worth a thousand words
Definitely, the injuries are consistent with self-defense
Its ok, I have no interest in discussing it with you. I only quoted it to preserve it as a permenant record.
And according to Zimm's statements, where did that happen?
No, the injuries are consistent with getting beat up in a fight.
Not this crap again... Pass
Injuries sustained in an altercation =/= self-defense. If that were the case, there would be a zero % murder rate in the US:lol:
GEORGE ZIMMERMAN LOGIC 4 LYFE!
Yeah - but why doesn't that apply both ways?
Wrong....once again. Take a hint and school yourself before posting on this matter
Z's medical reports, the pics of his injuries, along with his own statement, are more than enough
Its about presumption of innocence, burden of proof, & reasonable doubt.
Its not about who I side with, who I want to win, or what I think happened.
I dont know Zimmerman, sounds like he has his faults to me, Im not his biggest fan, & I wouldnt offer to go out for a drink with him.
Maybe Im wrong about him, maybe he's been maligned by the press, & is really a nice guy, but the truth is it doesnt matter.
What matters is that the prosecution has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman had no cause to stand his ground & defend himself, & instead killed Trayvon Martin using unreasonable force without provocation.
What happened that day was a tragedy, a young man, with his whole life still ahead of him perished needlessly young.
But the law is the law, & its set up to protect the defendant from injustice, & insists in the presumption of innocence.
If Id lived there maybe Id have been Zimmermans friend, maybe Id have been Martins, maybe Id have been neither, but I have to go with the law, its how it works.
I'm actually not quite following your point here - I mean, I get everything you're saying . . . but not sure how it pans out with your view on it.
Are you saying you're aloof and waiting for a verdict?
Because that's what I'm doing. . . I get lost as to how photos and tidbits proove innocent/guilt.
Ok - gotcha.At the end of the day, yes we have to wait for a verdict. I know people have trawled the evidence but you can never pre-empt a trial as they have a habit of throwing up surprises.
But away from all the trivia, away from who wore what, who walked where, & who said what, at the root of it all, the prosecution has to show, beyond all reasonable doubt that Zimmerman instigated the fight.
Thats the evidence that needs to be presented, cast iron evidence, irrefutable evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt that Zimmerman threw the first punch.
If they can not prove that one fact, to that level of proof, then the law only allows one verdict & come the trial we shall see if they can present that evidence or not.