• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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.

Trayvon Martin Video Shows No Blood or Bruises on George Zimmerman [W:1041]

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Logical conclusion.
Logical? Possibly. Inevitable, singular, or only conclusion? Definitely not. There're other "logical" conclusions which are different.
It's your opinion that these ones are the meaningful ones.
 

mertex

Don't Mess With Texas
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
2,382
Reaction score
601
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
You know.... if you didn't already know that the words on the police vehicle said "SANDFORD POLICE".... it would be difficult to read that in the video.

Taking that into account, this blurry video is hardly evidence of much.

However, at 0:55, you can see that the officer inspects the back of Zimmerman's head... wonder why he would do that.
Could it be because Zimmerman has already stated that he was defending himself and had his head banged, and the police is inspecting to see any damage? Doesn't mean that it's true, either. And from the looks of his head, and his ability to walk unattended, it doesn't appear that just 35 minutes before that he was barely clinging to life.
 

What if...?

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
25,729
Reaction score
9,261
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Wow, you have PROOF that the daddy judge has the original 911 tapes? That is awesome. That should be lead media story.

Of course, I can't prove that all all, can you? You have NOTHING or even any rational claim that Zimmerman's father has the original evidence. Just write anything claiming an offset.

In fact, an ex municipal magistrate is a nobody. You equating him to the same power as the President and Department of Justice is absurd.

They are some people have 100% total trust in the government and I you're one of those. REALLY Iraq DID have weapons of mass destruction, REALLY the N. Vietnamese DID attack the US Navy in the Gulf of Tonkin and REALLY that Spanish sunk the Maine - according to you. Anything the federal government says is 100% true - according to you.

I did not accuse of "crooked federal investigators." I posted there are great motivates on their part to reach certain conclusions - given all their jobs may depend upon the conclusion that they reach. One witness who gave a statement to the police and then on video to the media away for the police reversed what he saw as an eye witness only AFTER the DOJ had off-record privately spoke to him.

Since the DOJ as the orginal 911 call with someone yelling for help on it, they can "prove" whatever they want about what they say is the final original copy. The proof with NOT be the tape. The proof will be what the DOJ says the tape proves - then you believe them or not.
I'm saying you're making some bald accusations that Zim will be railroaded by corrupt officials.

I was just mentioning another "official" who has a personal motivation to influence this case.

I don't have proof and neither do you.

You say the government lies and I agree. I say that the kids of judges and cops etc., have this amazing tendency to have an "easier" time in the criminal justice system than "civilians". I've seen this with my own two eyes and I'm betting others here have too.

Too much histrionics, joko.
 

What if...?

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
25,729
Reaction score
9,261
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Why sure he is, by TNBP, and Spike Lee....

What I want to know is when these New Black Panther racists are going to be arrested for levying a bounty on a mans head?

It is against the law to do that...


j-mac
I'm not even sure those three guys HAVE ten thousand dollars between them.
 

Karl

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
5,561
Reaction score
1,589
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
I am not in a position to comment upon the laws of the State of Florida, but in most jurisdictions based upon English Common Law, the plea of self defence is an affirmative defence. An affirmative defence requires an assertion of facts beyond those claimed by the plaintiff and the party who offers an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof. In this case, Zimmerman has pleaded guilty to killing Martin, but if it goes to court (which it must in any society governed by the rule of law,) he will be pleading self-defence in mitigation, not in negation of that fact. An affirmative defense can be different from a negating defense. A negating defense is one which tends to negate an essential element of the state's case.

But there is more latitude allowed in proving a case of self-defence - it need not always be 'beyond any reasonable doubt'. In British Law, one only needs to have a genuine fear for one's life (or the life of another) for the plea in mitigation of self-defence to be accepted. 'The balance of probabilities' is the standard most likely to be applied in a case of self-defence, but a good enough case must be made to convince a jury of one's peers that the circumstances were of such gravity as to induce mortal fear - to the extent that he had no choice (no possibility of retreat or alternative action) but to kill someone - in a sane and reasonable person.

Irrespective of who threw the first punch, and who was in the process of getting his arse kicked - having instigated the conflict (by approaching someone who was not engaging in criminal or even civilly offense behaviour,) I am not sure even the lower standard of proof would find in Zimmerman's favour - especially given his minimal injuries. I am not however, familiar with US Law, so I will arrive at no legal conclusions. But I have come to some fairly clear moral ones in respect of this case.
Exquisitely stated.

The Florida 'loophole' (776.041(2)(a) in Zimmerman's case):

2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[SUP] [18][/SUP]

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.— [...], 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 [...]

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.
. (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless [...]

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
. [...]
. (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
. . (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
. . (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As you can see, the immunity clause means no affirmative defense is required.
 
Last edited:

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That both are equally fattening, even without reading the nutrition labels, is a logical conclusion.
It's actually an assumption one didn't bother to seek info on. imho. ymmv.
 

Karl

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
5,561
Reaction score
1,589
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
Logical conclusion.

Chocolate ice cream is better than Vanilla ice cream is an opinion. Opinion does not require knowledge (other than, in this case, taste of the two items).

That both are equally fattening, even without reading the nutrition labels, is a logical conclusion.
It's actually an assumption one didn't bother to seek info on. imho. ymmv.
Negative. The assumption is all yours, which illustrates other errors in your other posts (such as the one wherein you thought I claimed the police had not taken possession of Zimmerman's clothes).

Two ice cream boxes, one chocolate, one vanilla. Since that is the only difference stated, you cannot assume that they are different brands, different styles, nor that one is sugar free and the other is not. The logical conclusion would be that since only the flavor is different, the caloric content would be the same. However, the conclusion is based upon inductive reasoning, and is therefore not absolute. And indeed, in this case it is wrong, since Breyer's Natural Vanilla ice cream is 130 calories per serving, Breyer's Chocolate ice cream is 140 calories. Close, but no cigar.

An assumption would be something taken for granted without any rational analysis; something handed down over time, a fable, so-called conventional wisdom, urban legend, etc. Example:

. . . With age, comes wisdom.

The rest of the quote:

. . . But sometimes age comes alone ;)
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,744
Reaction score
28,330
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There may be probable cause. I don't know. And neither do you. The proof's in the grand jury returning a true bill. That is my objectivity. Innocent until proven guilty.

Who's given a statement to police that Zimmerman threw the first punch? (No one that we know of.)
Who's given a statement to police that Zimmerman's accounting of events is untrue? (No one that we know of.)

If there's evidence that Trayvon Martin was shot from a distance? Different ballgame.
If the DOJ decides this is some kind of hate crime? Different ballgame.
If witnesses come forward that contradict his story? Different ballgame.

Unless and until that happens, my objectivity tells me that this guy's being crucified...lynched...railroaded by public opinion. Pick your verb.
Maggie - I sympathize with many of your concerns. I agree that a grand jury needs to get involved in this and we need to know much more about the forensic evidence.

I think you go too far when you say the guy is being railroaded or lynched. Yes, there are some on the fringes like the New Panthers who seem to advocate that sort of retribution - but I think lots of people simply want to see a complete and thorough investigation and not the fast rush to judgment that occurred before this issue came upon the national stage.
 

Crosscheck

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
10,279
Reaction score
7,621
Location
NW USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Maggie - I sympathize with many of your concerns. I agree that a grand jury needs to get involved in this and we need to know much more about the forensic evidence.

I think you go too far when you say the guy is being railroaded or lynched. Yes, there are some on the fringes like the New Panthers who seem to advocate that sort of retribution - but I think lots of people simply want to see a complete and thorough investigation and not the fast rush to judgment that occurred before this issue came upon the national stage.
There has been attempt to railroad both Martin and Zimmerman. In this forum there was the pushing of photos of some other black kid flipping the bird and claiming it was Martin. How many times has Martin been described as a gansta by Joko.

There is so much evidence that we are not privy to. On the surface this whole incident stinks and whether they like it or not, Zimmerman could have prevented that whole incident.
 

poweRob

Agent of USDR
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
57,973
Reaction score
26,844
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
How does any of that attack pertain to the events of that night that led to the death of Martin?
It doesn't. He apparently wanted to show more about himself than he did the topic. And that he did.
 

dolphinocean

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2009
Messages
4,138
Reaction score
807
Location
Volunteer State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There may be probable cause. I don't know. And neither do you. The proof's in the grand jury returning a true bill. That is my objectivity. Innocent until proven guilty.

Who's given a statement to police that Zimmerman threw the first punch? (No one that we know of.)
Who's given a statement to police that Zimmerman's accounting of events is untrue? (No one that we know of.)

If there's evidence that Trayvon Martin was shot from a distance? Different ballgame.
If the DOJ decides this is some kind of hate crime? Different ballgame.
If witnesses come forward that contradict his story? Different ballgame.

Unless and until that happens, my objectivity tells me that this guy's being crucified...lynched...railroaded by public opinion. Pick your verb.
Given what we know, this case should be brought before a grand jury who would be looking at all the evidence.

Given the circumstances that led up to an unarmed teenager's murder, while minding his own business, by an obsessive vigilantee it is unbelievable that the police chief and the DA had hastily concluded this case with a dismissal by saying the injuries Zimmerman suffered was consistent with his claim of self-defense while there were still many unanswered questions and inconsistencies, including the failure to interview the victim's girl friend.

Your so-called "objectivity" about "this guy's being crucified...lynched...railroaded by public opinion" is hogwash. I will pick the verb "bark" and say that you are barking the wrong tree.

Trying to point out the behavior of Zimmerman that night per his 911 call and pointing out inconsistencies in his story of his killing of an unarmed teenage doesn't amount to him "being crucified...lynched...railroaded by public opinion." All we are trying to do is to show that the DA and the police chief were wrong in their decision to close the case and sweep it under the rug. So, get a grip on that, will ya?

Yes, he is innocent until proven guilty. But, the problem is, the DA and police chief had already decided that he is the innocent guy and Trayvon the aggressor who deserved to be put to death for his aggression. So, I ask you, where's the prove for that?

Where is the "innocent until proven guilty" for Trayvon? Where is his justice? After all he was the one who was shot and killed, while unarmed and minding his own business, by a solidly built adult more than a decade his age who should be matured enough to know a lot better while carrying a gun.

Your so-called "objectivity" is for him to walk free as he is doing right now without having to face some kind of justice to answer to many unanswered questions that are before us. But, any human being with a sense of justice and fairness will not let this happen. That's why we are here to cry out for justice and to make sure Trayvon's voice would be heard, not just the perpetrator.
 
Last edited:

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Actually there is no evidence of his injuries at all. We do not have the official police reports. We do not have the offical EMT reports. And of course, his attorney is probably lying (if you'll check exact quotes, you'll find wiggle room).
Dude..... You are way behind. The initial responding Officer's incident report has been released. The Detective's file has not been released. The initial responding officer is the one who observed the injuries and had SFD clean him up and then transported him to the police station in handcuffs to be interviewed.



And again, 'common sense' (more about that in my next post) would dictate the Zimmerman's attorney would make sure his 'serious' injuries had already been photographed and widely disseminated to the media. As well as any blood on his clothing (which, it seems, was not collected by the police as evidence... giving rise to the 'common sense' conclusion that his clothing contained no blood evidence). Where are these photos?
Umm... When the media ****storm started because of this, it had been nearly a month....... Which gave his wounds plenty of time to heal. Zimmerman never hired an attorney until the media ****storm started. Thus the only photographs of his injuries when they were fresh, were more likely the ones taken by the police. The police do not try cases in the media.

The one witness statement about the guy in the red sweater being on bottom of the fight I do not consider definitive. Doesn't mean it's wrong, just means that on its own I don't consider it definitive. If evidence does surface to substantiate a more serious nature to Zimmerman's alleged injuries, then perhaps that one witness' testimony (given under what terms yet unknown) could carry more weight. Or if the witness will swear that the guy on top had a hoodie, that would be a better description of events (IIRC, all the witness said was the guy on bottom had on a red sweater... could a dark hoodie be interpreted as a red sweater?). Exact questioning under oath will probably determine how good that ID is.
How many other eyewitnesses are there? Folks trying to convict Zimmerman on this forum seem hung up on "other witnesses". But earwitnesses are not as good as eyewitnesses. To suggest there are other eyewitnesses that you don't know about that contradict the other eyewitness is grasping for straws.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Could it be because Zimmerman has already stated that he was defending himself and had his head banged, and the police is inspecting to see any damage? Doesn't mean that it's true, either. And from the looks of his head, and his ability to walk unattended, it doesn't appear that just 35 minutes before that he was barely clinging to life.
Who said he was barely clinging to life?

That isn't the standard for use of deadly force in self defense.....

:roll:
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Given what we know, this case should be brought before a grand jury who would be looking at all the evidence.
First, the DA has to agree to charge him. Next, the GJ does not look at all the evidence. In fact, they look at the minimal amount of evidence the DA thinks he has to present in order to have them return a True Bill.

That's why given the circumstances that led up to an unarmed teenager's murder while minding his own business by an obsessive vigilantee it is unbelievable that the police chief and the DA had hastily concluded this case with a dismissal by saying the injuries Zimmerman suffered was consistent with his claim of self-defense while there were still many unanswered questions and inconsistencies, including the failure to interview the victim's girl friend.
The smartest post on this whole thread is from the poster who said (I'm not sure he's right, but it makes sense) that Zimmerman has an "affirmative defense" -- that, by claiming self-defense, it's up to the Defendant to show there were mitigating circumstances. This goes along with my opinion that any homocide should be given a hearing, at the very least.

Trying to point out the behavior of Zimmerman that night per his 911 call and pointing out inconsistencies in his story of his killing of an unarmed teenage doesn't amount to him "being crucified...lynched...railroaded by public opinion." So, get a grip on that, will ya?

Yes, he is innocent until proven guilty. But, the problem is, the DA and police chief had already decided that he is the innocent guy and Trayvon the aggressor who deserved to be put to death for his aggression. So, I ask you, where's the prove for that?
Wrong, yet again. The DA decided he didn't have enough evidence to indict him. That has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence.

Where is the "innocent until proven guilty" for Trayvon? Where is his justice? After all he was the one shot and killed while unarmed and minding his own business by a solidly built adult more than a decade his age who should be matured enough to know a lot better while carrying a gun.
If that's what happened, he'll have his justice.

Your so-called "objectivity" is for him to walk free as he is doing right now without having to face some kind of justice to answer to many unanswered questions that are before us. But, any human being with a sense of justice and fairness will not let this happen. That's why we are here to cry out for justice and to make sure Trayvon's voice would be heard, not just the perpetrator.
My objectivity is to make my decisions (all of them) on facts and not conjecture. Apparently others? Not-so-much. BTW, who is "we"? I want justice, too. I'm prepared to let justice take it's course. You? Again? Not-so-much.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Who said he was barely clinging to life?

That isn't the standard for use of deadly force in self defense.....

:roll:
It's absolutely hopeless here on DP. And in the streets.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Okay, I stand corrected, we do have the initial official police report. "Bleeding from the nose and the back of the head." No mention of a broken nose.
LEOs don't go ****ing with people's noses to determine if its broke... Its not part of the job. He reported what he saw with his eyes, nothing more.


Then we're in agreement -- there is no evidence that Zimmerman was in a fight for his life that required the use of deadly force. No evidence of a broken nose. No evidence of his head being repeatedly bashed against the sidewalk.
You have it backwards. It is the prosecution's responsibility to prove otherwise. This responsibility does not rest upon the shoulders of the defense.


When there is a large lynch mob forming against my client. When my client's story (broken nose) is falling apart. When my client claims to have been in a fight for his life, and keeping him hidden hides the physical evidence of that fight (and worse, allows it to heal just like it had never even existed . . . . . ).
Oh, so now you think he should come out of hiding so he can get lynched and strung up?


So what? Using your logic, Zimmerman might as well plead guilty, since folks will say he is guilty. And who says he's got a hospital report? If he's got one, why not publish it? Unless, of course, it... um... doesn't support the severity of the injuries that are being claimed.
It isn't the job of the defense to try this case in the media. If I were the defense attorney, I wouldn't release anything from my bag of tricks until trial time.


Old enough to think that if the clothing had been taken as evidence, his lawyer would be announcing that (thereby bolstering Zimmerman's self defense claim). Surely Zimmerman's attorney knows that this case is being tried in the media, and that any potential jury pool is going to be tainted by all this media coverage which is damning to his client. Why not get some positive news out there, that bolsters Zimmerman's claim?

Or is that too much common sense for someone your age? ;)
See above.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well, if we're going to make bald accusations of corruption.

I'll see your crooked federal investigators and raise you a daddy judge.
A ****ing magistrate judge?

Do you have any clue what a magistrate "judge" does?

Sits around in a button up flanel shirt and jeans and completes paperwork, and marries people who are too poor to go to the church.
 

dolphinocean

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2009
Messages
4,138
Reaction score
807
Location
Volunteer State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
WTF?
You are the one imagining what you think I am imagining, not actually anything to do with what I imagine or not imagine.



You really should have not brought that to this thread.
You were the one who was and still is wrong.
Get over it.



lol
Talk about over reaching.
Anyways...
No he didn't.
Where's the fish? I don't know but I smell something fishy when the event of that night was described as if it was a still picture.

I didn't bring the video here, you did. I merely described possible scenarios from real life jail fihgt to make points about:

1. Witness accounts can be different and sometimes appeared to be contradictory depending on the time the event was observed.
2. Fighting is a dynamic event that changes very fast. The one who started the aggression can become the loser when the victim gained the upperhand.
3. Eyewitness account may not be accurate, especially at night where lighting is poor and the actions between two persons fighting moved very fast.
4. Perpetrator of violence, when caught, typically lied.

The video I referred to showed all those. Now, I thought you were honest in admitting error. I guess it was selective or you were just playing tricks.
 
Last edited:

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Why sure he is, by TNBP, and Spike Lee....

What I want to know is when these New Black Panther racists are going to be arrested for levying a bounty on a mans head?

It is against the law to do that...


j-mac
Didn't our DOJ refused to do something the last time the black panthers acted up?
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Maggie - I sympathize with many of your concerns. I agree that a grand jury needs to get involved in this and we need to know much more about the forensic evidence.

I think you go too far when you say the guy is being railroaded or lynched. Yes, there are some on the fringes like the New Panthers who seem to advocate that sort of retribution - but I think lots of people simply want to see a complete and thorough investigation and not the fast rush to judgment that occurred before this issue came upon the national stage.
If there was a fast rush to judgement.......

We don't know the extent of what is in that file.

We know what particular parties have bothered to divulge.... or the media has tried to stir up.
 

dolphinocean

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2009
Messages
4,138
Reaction score
807
Location
Volunteer State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
First, the DA has to agree to charge him. Next, the GJ does not look at all the evidence. In fact, they look at the minimal amount of evidence the DA thinks he has to present in order to have them return a True Bill.



The smartest post on this whole thread is from the poster who said (I'm not sure he's right, but it makes sense) that Zimmerman has an "affirmative defense" -- that, by claiming self-defense, it's up to the Defendant to show there were mitigating circumstances. This goes along with my opinion that any homocide should be given a hearing, at the very least.



Wrong, yet again. The DA decided he didn't have enough evidence to indict him. That has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence.



If that's what happened, he'll have his justice.



My objectivity is to make my decisions (all of them) on facts and not conjecture. Apparently others? Not-so-much. BTW, who is "we"? I want justice, too. I'm prepared to let justice take it's course. You? Again? Not-so-much.
You want justice take it's course? Far from it. You want to ignore all that we know and let this man walk, knowing the DA and police chief had washed their hands. You believe the DA and the police can do no wrong.

The police chief's public statement for their reason to close the case is that Zimmerman's injury is consistent with his claim of self-defense. How does having some kind of injury proved that it is a self-defense? First off, how did that police chief know that the cuts or wounds he had on the back of his head weren't already there prior to the fight? Did he rule it out? There are so many possible ways Zimmerman could have sustained any injury, if there is one on him, but to say the injury is consistent to his claim of self-defense is completely unbelievable.

But, to you that's good enough to just let Zimmerman walk. That's called injustice in my book, given the Trayvon's situation.
 
Last edited:

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
You want justice take it's course? Far from it. You want to ignore all that we know and let this man walk, knowing the DA and police chief had washed their hands. You believe the DA and the police can do no wrong.

The police chief's public statement for their reason to close the case is that Zimmerman's injury is consistent with his claim of self-defense. How does having some kind of injury proved that it is a self-defense? First off, how did that police chief know that the cuts or wounds he had on the back of his head weren't already there prior to the fight? Did he rule it out? There are so many possible ways Zimmerman could have sustained any injury, if there is one on him, but to say the injury is consistent to his claim of self-defense it completely unbelievable.

But, to you that's good enough to just let Zimmerman walk. That's called injustice in my book, given the Trayvon's situation.
You're just blah-blah-blahing. It's all been hashed, rehashed and re-rehashed. All of it.

That you don't even accept my statement that his injury is "consistent to his claim of self-defense" shows you have lost all perspective.
 
Top Bottom