• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

New photo released from night of shooting

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
34,478
Reaction score
17,282
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well, looks like Z got beat up pretty good.

zimmerman-bloodied-e1354569582845.jpg
 
A pic is worth a thousand words

Definitely, the injuries are consistent with self-defense
 
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
Who's defense, Zimmerman's or Martin's?

This pic might be worth a thousand words, but it only tells half the story.
 
That was the first blow too, the one that knocked him to the ground.

And according to Zimm's statements, where did that happen?
 
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.
 
No, the injuries are consistent with getting beat up in a fight.

Congratulations.

That line says it all.

& if youre getting beat up in a fight you have the right to stand your ground & defend yourself.
 
Who's defense, Zimmerman's or Martin's?

This pic might be worth a thousand words, but it only tells half the story.
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. :confused:
 
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.
 
Not if you instigated the fight and shot because you were losing.

Its ok, I have no interest in discussing it with you. I only quoted it to preserve it as a permenant record.
 
Congratulations.

That line says it all.

& if youre getting beat up in a fight you have the right to stand your ground & defend yourself.

Yeah - but why doesn't that apply both ways?

what everyone's really siding on is who was the aggressor - obviously they believe that Martin was the aggressor.

It really doesn't matter the injuries sustained - one aggressed, the other supposedly defended self.
 
A pic is worth a thousand words

Definitely, the injuries are consistent with self-defense

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!
 
Its ok, I have no interest in discussing it with you. I only quoted it to preserve it as a permenant record.

You have no interest in discussing it with me because I raise questions that conflict with your already predetermined conclusions which make you uncomfortable.

But asking uncomfortable questions is the beginning of the search for truth.
 
If i got in a fist fight with someone in a bar i have the right to whip out a gun and shoot the guy im in a fight with?
 
No, the injuries are consistent with getting beat up in a fight.

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
 
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!

Stop with your useless banter
 
Yeah - but why doesn't that apply both ways?

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.
 
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

Zimm's statements will be the central attack of the prosecution.
 
I have said all along regarding this case we do not know all the facts nor have seen all the evidence. past posters who based Z injuries on what the news had shown were jumping to conclusions. That is why we have trials, to sort the evidence out.

I feel Z is most likely not guilty of murder 2. I will buy into Z statements as self defense, until proven otherwise.
In the end two people made regretable decisions that night. Z and M.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
Ok - gotcha.

True.
 
Back
Top Bottom