Justice for Trayvon??

And when that wife shows up at the hospital with a black eye do you also conclude she did something to deserve it?

Maybe she followed him?

Physical violence as a response to none physical violence is either wrong or it isn't.
You seem to think its ok if provoked. I'm sure those abused kids and wife's everywhere provoke it.


I might be in favor of a jury trial determining whether or not Martin committed assault and battery, except ... er, yeah.
 
It doesn't though.

Because zimmerman got beat up trayvon started it?

I've had people call me out only to their ass handed to them.

I'm sure they have a different version of what happened to make themselves not look like such an idiot.

You read the tea leaves one way, the detictive, most of the legal community and myself read it another.
 
Nail meet hammer. This post is close to the whole point. All we now is Zimmerman followed him. Travon was seen on top beating him. So we are left to circumstantial evidence to determine who initiated violence. The vast majority of which points to Martin.

We have more than that. There is the 911 cal. If Z wanted to kill somebody, why on Earth would he call 911 to report it? :confused: Besides that, there is the now-established fact that the gun was fired at very close range, no more than four inches, and the bullet struck TM in the front of his body. We also know, from the injuries, that Z's head was struck repeatedly against a slab of cement, such as a sidewalk. This is the kind of blow that causes concussions, some of which are fatal. :eek:
 
Another not so stellar day for the prosecution. We learned, among other things, that the way the evidence was handled virtually destroyed any possibility of credible DNA testing. (ie. storing the wet clothes in a sealed plastic bag. You can't leave laundry in the machine after it's finished for over two hours in that climate before the mold and bacteria take over.)

The defense forensic expert did a really good job of explaining his conclusions in laymen's terms.

Add to that Serino's call that Zimmerman was telling the truth (yes, I know that the judge ordered that stricken and the jury to disregard, but that lingered overnight and you just can't un-ring a bell).

Ishmael
 
I might be in favor of a jury trial determining whether or not Martin committed assault and battery, except ... er, yeah.

Since such a thing can never happen, we must go by what was reported by eye witnesses and the natures of the injuries suffered by both men.
 
Another not so stellar day for the prosecution. We learned, among other things, that the way the evidence was handled virtually destroyed any possibility of credible DNA testing. (ie. storing the wet clothes in a sealed plastic bag. You can't leave laundry in the machine after it's finished for over two hours in that climate before the mold and bacteria take over.)

The defense forensic expert did a really good job of explaining his conclusions in laymen's terms.

Add to that Serino's call that Zimmerman was telling the truth (yes, I know that the judge ordered that stricken and the jury to disregard, but that lingered overnight and you just can't un-ring a bell).

Ishmael

I think that Zimmerman will get off, but why would the jury remember Serino saying he believed Zimmerman more than Serino saying Zimmerman lied?
 
You read the tea leaves one way, the detictive, most of the legal community and myself read it another.

I guess someone who knows the stand your ground law as well as zimmy does, he could tell whatever story he wanted to without implicating himself.
 
Someone else testified that Zimmerman was on top of Trayvon. Take a dyslexia-retention pill for your eyes, then go look it up.

DERP.

And an expert testified that Martin was on top when shot.

Just becuase your rascist heart wants it not to be true doesn't mean it isn't.
 
Someone else testified that Zimmerman was on top of Trayvon. Take a dyslexia-retention pill for your eyes, then go look it up.

DERP.

The witness with the best view testified the person with the dark jacket was on top and the person with the red jacket was on the bottom. In the darkness, he couldn't identify them, but he could and did identify their clothing. Besides, the nature of the injuries suffered by both men indicates M was on top when he was shot.
 
I have no beef with you, but please eliminate that term from your vocabulary as it is redundant.

I wasn't referring to you; sorry if you thought that.

But reading comprehension is a legitimate skill and different from basic reading skills and reading fluency.
 
The witness with the best view testified the person with the dark jacket was on top and the person with the red jacket was on the bottom. In the darkness, he couldn't identify them, but he could and did identify their clothing. Besides, the nature of the injuries suffered by both men indicates M was on top when he was shot.

"...the best view..."

"...nature of the injuries...indicates..."

dd1.gif


Opinions are great, ain't they?
 
The witness could tell the difference between a red and black jacket in the dark? How close was the witness ?
 
The witness could tell the difference between a red and black jacket in the dark? How close was the witness ?

Witness: Zimmerman was on bottom.
Cop: Zimmermans back was wet and grass stained.
Medical expert: Martin was in top when shot.

Like your racist friend Zumi you should stick with insults.
 
Back
Top