Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why is it important how "serious" his injuries were?
He was in fact "injured" and he said he feared for his life.
True, and I said that might be all he needs if his attorney files for an immunity hearing and claims self-defense using Florida's "Stand-Your-Ground" law. Then Zimmerman has to prove that he felt he had no choice and took deadly force to save his own life
In my previous comments, I only said that the media used the words "graphic" as if we haven't seen worse photos on TV crime dramas or even on Halloween. I'm not a medical professional, so I have no idea if his injuries were serious or not.
People who were defending Zimmerman before the photos were released, and we only had the police video, were posting that serious head injuries aren't necessarily bloody. One member said he/she didn't expect to see blood if his head was slammed into a sidewalk. Now we're getting comments like "See? His head was bloody!" Did the police always have these photos? If so, it's strange that the prosecution didn't consider them when charging Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder. As I already said, we'll find out when this goes to trial or if the case is dismissed by a judge.
Your post might have some validity in it or worth a second look if you didn't mention Obama and the New Black Panthers in the same sentence. Obama has never gotten involved in this case, not once. He avoid it until a reporter pressed him on it, so he answered solemnly and compassionately.
Funny that, when asked about Obama, even Zimmerman's attorney said he found nothing offensive about his remarks, but you do.
Romney did the Presidential type response perfectly, Obama made it racial politics.
Do you expect the Defense Attorney of Zimmerman to go against the President before going to trial as part of the public conversation?
We've seen this kind of poor interactive behavior before in the supposed "police acting stupidly incident" which was Obama being stupid along with his goofy beer summit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justNancy
Riots? Please show me where Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson once talked about rioting or taking any action that wasn't peaceful and legal?
Yes, Angela Corey is up for re-election. Rick Scott appointed her however, and he isn't.
However, it's always about politics once politicians get involved, but it doesn't mean she'd charge a man with 2nd degree murder to get votes.
It's possible she has enough to get a manslaughter conviction and, in the State of Florida, a jury can convict on the lesser charge.
If you recall, they even had that option during the 1st degree murder trial of Casey Anthony. We just have to wait to see how this case progresses.
If they get the right jury anything could happen, but there is no evidence according to even the investigative officer for the prosecution under oath that contradicts the statements Zimmerman gave.
They have to assume the who case to create guilt.
In cases like this in the past that got great press there was never a guilty verdict. Could all these people inciting riots or threatening death to the Judge, parents and everyone cause a guilty verdict because of outside forces? Don't know.
Nobody knows how serious they were, and we won't until we get a medical report. It's interesting that you don't want to believe the girl the victim was on the phone with, but you want to take the word of a neighbor who claims he took those photos. (is there one of his face?) When these photos are entered into evidence, only then will they be authenticated. Were they mentioned in the bond hearing? Was the EMS report released?
I realize you specifically aren't targeting my comments, but I could ask the moderators to remove your remarks too, but I don't, as long as you aren't in violation of the TOS. Even then, I usually look the other way most of the time. If not, there are hateful posts on these threads that would have been removed, even jokes about a dead teenager. What it sounds like you are really saying is that, if people do not agree with you, their comments should be edited or removed. Do you also feel people who have a certain income, religion or race don't have the right to vote?
By the way, I guess you never read the post I wrote about the several stitches required when a golf club was accidentally swung into my head. There was blood everywhere, even in my eyes. It looked a lot worse than it really was, however. I still have the scar 50 years later. If Zimmerman had serious wounds that required stitches, he will still have scars.
In 2010 (you can even find the posts I wrote after my release from the hospital) I was in an accident and spent 5 days in the hospital. My pelvic bone was fractured and, although my head hit the floor, it wasn't severely injured. In both cases, I never thought about shooting the person who injured me.
I do not know what happened that evening after the 911 call ended and neither do you.
We have
1) police reports
2) witnesses who saw him getting bashed
3) photo right after
4) video right after (for both head and nose)
5) lawyer at bond hearing said they had medical for nose
At this point, there is no question he was bashed, and it's derailing to continue on about it. It's incontrovertible that deadly head wounds can lack a visible mark. At any rate, the legal standard does not require actual deadly injuries but a reasonable fear they will happen. In short, Zimmerman has been vindicated with respect to the head injuries, whether you like it or not.
Please keep the convo to real, relevant issues. Like, what evidence you have that Zimmerman started the physical altercation.
Only problem is Zim's lawyer got the investigator to admit on the stand that they had no evidence to contradict Zim's account for how fight started. So the affidavit was false when it said "Zim confronted Trayvon. That alone supports a perjury charge.
Also, you're making a big assumption this magical other evidence will come out. The prosecution pushed hard for higher bail at the bond hearing and likely would have used explosive evidence of guilt if it had it.
I don't believe that is exactly what the investigator testified to....they had "no evidence" to contradict Zimmerman's account for how the fight started. If I remember correctly, he said they didn't have evidence as to exactly who started the fight. That's different.
The hearing was a BAIL hearing; no, the prosecutor would not likely have used "explosive evidence of guilt" to get a higher bail. It was not a guilty/innocence hearing. It was a bail hearing. The purpose of a bail hearing is to determine the flight risk of the defendant as well as whether or not he is a danger to the community or to himself. Zimmerman had already basically proved himself by not fleeing the country and returning to Sanford after he was charged with this crime.
April 27th is, I think, the date the state has to produce evidence to the defense. So let's wait and see what comes out after that. It would be very poor strategy to throw your whole case out there at a bail hearing. At this point, the State has not been required to release anything other than the Probable Cause Affidavit and the testimony at the bail hearing. I can't believe you people think that they are going to disclose everything to the public before the trial. So, wait and see. If they produce nothing more than what you've seen after the 27th, maybe you're right, and then probably the defense would request an immunity hearing and the whole thing would go away. BUT at this point we simply don't know all the evidence the State has.
I don't believe that is exactly what the investigator testified to....they had "no evidence" to contradict Zimmerman's account for how the fight started. If I remember correctly, he said they didn't have evidence as to exactly who started the fight. That's different.
The hearing was a BAIL hearing; no, the prosecutor would not likely have used "explosive evidence of guilt" to get a higher bail. It was not a guilty/innocence hearing. It was a bail hearing. The purpose of a bail hearing is to determine the flight risk of the defendant as well as whether or not he is a danger to the community or to himself. Zimmerman had already basically proved himself by not fleeing the country and returning to Sanford after he was charged with this crime.
April 27th is, I think, the date the state has to produce evidence to the defense. So let's wait and see what comes out after that. It would be very poor strategy to throw your whole case out there at a bail hearing. At this point, the State has not been required to release anything other than the Probable Cause Affidavit and the testimony at the bail hearing. I can't believe you people think that they are going to disclose everything to the public before the trial. So, wait and see. If they produce nothing more than what you've seen after the 27th, maybe you're right, and then probably the defense would request an immunity hearing and the whole thing would go away. BUT at this point we simply don't know all the evidence the State has.
Please explain how "we have no evidence as to who started it" could be true but "we have no evidence to contradict Zimmerman" could be false. If the state thinks Zimmerman is lying, it should have positive evidence contradicting him. It's technically possible that the state has evidence showing something Zimmerman said is inaccurate, but you still say the state said they dont know who started it. So the affidavit was false when it said he confronted Trayvon either way.
And as someone above pointed out, it doesn't matter that it was a bail hearing, it's still part of the record and the witness for the prosecution was still required to tell the whole truth on the stand. And as I pointed out earlier, the state was pushing hard at the bail hearing and would likey have used explosive evidence if it had it.
The bloody bruised head aside, I think the fact that the investigator admitted they had no evidence contradicting Zim's story opens them up to prosecution.
The mods should shut down comments and possibly ban people who keep questioning whether Zimmerman's head injuries were "serious enough." It's rude, dishonest, and frankly insulting to any number of people who have been assaulted or suffered a head injury. Its bordering on trolling and is derailing the conversation, which at this point should focus on the possible legal consequences against the prosecution and Zimmerman's legal remedies against the news media.
The night of the killing, one LEO wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter but was overruled. On the police report, Trayvon Martin's
cause of death had 4 answers, the first being "homicide" and the last being "excessive force." It is not as cut and dried as you've assumed.
As for the head wounds to Zimmerman, the posters include at least 2 working nurses and a former nurse; the experience and knowledge brought to the discussion are valuable. Since Zimmerman's defense is that he was,
as his brother put it, beaten almost to the point that he'd be left in a diaper and spoonfed for the rest of his life, if the nature of those wounds isn't germane to the case, exactly what is?
They are doing a good job of stating what they heard.
The turd on CNN trying to manipulate the interview deserves his low ratings.
Except that they both hadn't seen George Zimmerman, had they? I didn't watch the videos, since I saw/heard Zimmerman's brother on TV a couple of times and I also heard his father, who was in silhouette. Both were asked if they actually saw George on the night of the shooting or even the next day and they said "he's honest." I never said he wasn't but, unless his father and brother were eyewitnesses, it's hearsay. I'm sure he also told his family that his ex-fiancee was the one who started all the fights too. He said that he only shoved and yelled at a law enforcement officer because he didn't identify himself. Maybe he's changed a lot since then, since he was only 22. Maybe he'salso telling the truth about what happened on Feb 26, but his past certainly shows a pattern of blaming others when he gets into trouble.
By the way, you mentioned "the low ratings" on CNN. I hear this a lot, that is, that both CNN and MSNBC have low ratings. So that must mean that Fox is #1, right? So then, why do so many right wingers keep insisting that the media is liberal? I mean, if 70% or more of you watch conservative TV and listen to conservative radio, the claim about the mainstream media isn't valid.
Heck, even the Simpsons and The Muppets don't like Fox News.
Last edited by justNancy; 04-24-2012 at 05:11 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
