|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Show nested quote +Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.-
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On June 26 2013 03:16 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 03:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. His word is that he was acting in self defense. The facts point me to believe Travyon is acting in self defense. And if Trayvon Martin were on trial and charged with a crime, whether he was acting in self defense would be relevant. However, since he is dead, it is completely irrelevant whether Martin was acting in self-defense. What is relevant is whether Zimmerman was acting in self-defense.
Martin's propensity for violent action is highly relevant to the case, if any proper evidence pertaining to its shape is available.
|
Why are there only six jurors? And why are they all women?
|
On June 26 2013 03:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- I didn't realize that travyon was so clean of blood for having supposedly brutalized someone.
That's kinda my point. You can't brutalize someone and have no DNA on you. That's why i'm confused, people talk about it here like it's a fact that he smashed his face to pieces, yet there's (seemingly) medical evidence completely ruling this scenario out (and no, you can't "brutalize" someone and not have his DNA on you, it's not like he wiped it after being killed to death).
It's utterly confusing, was "Guy" proven wrong in this case, or should i just disregard people who talk about brutalizing and stuff since it's most likely bs?
edit:
On June 26 2013 03:18 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +
That's one punch. Being brutalized looks way different, let me tell you.
|
On June 26 2013 03:15 bugser wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 03:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. His word is that he was acting in self defense. The facts point me to believe Travyon is acting in self defense. What makes you believe Trayvon was acting in self defense when he doubled back and ambushed Zimmerman?
We simply know that Travyon didn't go home, not that he double backed. We know that Travyon was running from Zimmerman, which leads me to believe he was scared. When Zimmerman shows up near his house, the only thing I can imagine is self defense.
|
On June 26 2013 03:19 Yorke wrote:
Why are there only six jurors? And why are they all women?
some states have six juror requirements, and jury selection resulted in only women being picked.
|
On June 26 2013 03:18 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +
He's asking if the blood is post or during the fight being that none of it was on Travyon.
|
It really is incredible how much weight he's gained.....like he seriously must have been binge eating while in hiding and doing little to no exercise....
|
On June 26 2013 03:19 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 03:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- I didn't realize that travyon was so clean of blood for having supposedly brutalized someone. That's kinda my point. You can't brutalize someone and have no DNA on you. That's why i'm confused, people talk about it here like it's a fact that he smashed his face to pieces, yet there's (seemingly) medical evidence completely ruling this scenario out (and no, you can't "brutalize" someone and not have his DNA on you, it's not like he wiped it after being killed to death). It's utterly confusing, was "Guy" proven wrong in this case, or should i just disregard people who talk about brutalizing and stuff since it's most likely bs? edit: Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 03:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler + That's one punch. Being brutalized looks way different, let me tell you.
They are misrepresenting the situation, He had very lightly blacked eyes and a swollen bloody nose with 2 small cuts on the back of his head. That is all. NOT BRUTALIZED. Normal fight stuff in my estimation.
|
On June 26 2013 03:21 farvacola wrote:
It really is incredible how much weight he's gained.....like he seriously must have been binge eating while in hiding and doing little to no exercise....
Stress and trauma can do that to you.
And 6 jurors seems ridiculously few.
|
On June 26 2013 03:21 natrus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 03:19 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- I didn't realize that travyon was so clean of blood for having supposedly brutalized someone. That's kinda my point. You can't brutalize someone and have no DNA on you. That's why i'm confused, people talk about it here like it's a fact that he smashed his face to pieces, yet there's (seemingly) medical evidence completely ruling this scenario out (and no, you can't "brutalize" someone and not have his DNA on you, it's not like he wiped it after being killed to death). It's utterly confusing, was "Guy" proven wrong in this case, or should i just disregard people who talk about brutalizing and stuff since it's most likely bs? edit: On June 26 2013 03:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler + That's one punch. Being brutalized looks way different, let me tell you. They are misrepresenting the situation, He had very lightly blacked eyes and a swollen bloody nose with 2 small cuts on the back of his head. That is all. NOT BRUTALIZED. Normal fight stuff in my estimation.
lol. "normal fight stuff."
regardless, whether he was "brutalized," whatever that means, is not the question. its whether he feared for his life/serious bodily injury. even if he didn't have a bruise on his body, he can still legitimately claim self defense.
|
On June 26 2013 03:21 farvacola wrote:
It really is incredible how much weight he's gained.....like he seriously must have been binge eating while in hiding and doing little to no exercise....
Not surprising though. OJ gained weight too.
|
On June 26 2013 03:22 Yorke wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 03:21 farvacola wrote:
It really is incredible how much weight he's gained.....like he seriously must have been binge eating while in hiding and doing little to no exercise.... Stress and trauma can do that to you. And 6 jurors seems ridiculously few.
a lot of states have 12, but the constitution only requires 6 apparently so Florida does 6.
|
On June 26 2013 03:23 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 03:21 natrus wrote:On June 26 2013 03:19 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- I didn't realize that travyon was so clean of blood for having supposedly brutalized someone. That's kinda my point. You can't brutalize someone and have no DNA on you. That's why i'm confused, people talk about it here like it's a fact that he smashed his face to pieces, yet there's (seemingly) medical evidence completely ruling this scenario out (and no, you can't "brutalize" someone and not have his DNA on you, it's not like he wiped it after being killed to death). It's utterly confusing, was "Guy" proven wrong in this case, or should i just disregard people who talk about brutalizing and stuff since it's most likely bs? edit: On June 26 2013 03:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler + That's one punch. Being brutalized looks way different, let me tell you. They are misrepresenting the situation, He had very lightly blacked eyes and a swollen bloody nose with 2 small cuts on the back of his head. That is all. NOT BRUTALIZED. Normal fight stuff in my estimation. lol. "normal fight stuff." regardless, whether he was "brutalized," whatever that means, is not the question. its whether he feared for his life/serious bodily injury. even if he didn't have a bruise on his body, he can still legitimately claim self defense.
Getting punched once sounds very different to a jury than brutalized.
|
I watched the CNN special covering the first day of the trial last night. What incredibly bizarre opening statements. I guess it's probably been talked about already but geez I couldn't help but laugh.
|
On June 26 2013 03:23 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 03:21 natrus wrote:On June 26 2013 03:19 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- I didn't realize that travyon was so clean of blood for having supposedly brutalized someone. That's kinda my point. You can't brutalize someone and have no DNA on you. That's why i'm confused, people talk about it here like it's a fact that he smashed his face to pieces, yet there's (seemingly) medical evidence completely ruling this scenario out (and no, you can't "brutalize" someone and not have his DNA on you, it's not like he wiped it after being killed to death). It's utterly confusing, was "Guy" proven wrong in this case, or should i just disregard people who talk about brutalizing and stuff since it's most likely bs? edit: On June 26 2013 03:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler + That's one punch. Being brutalized looks way different, let me tell you. They are misrepresenting the situation, He had very lightly blacked eyes and a swollen bloody nose with 2 small cuts on the back of his head. That is all. NOT BRUTALIZED. Normal fight stuff in my estimation. lol. "normal fight stuff." regardless, whether he was "brutalized," whatever that means, is not the question. its whether he feared for his life/serious bodily injury. even if he didn't have a bruise on his body, he can still legitimately claim self defense.
Not if he provoked the attack, can he? He follows someone, gets punched for that, kills the guy. If that works in the USA, well..
Again, i'm not talking about if he's guilty of murder. Is there something like "intentional manslaughter"? Just out of interest.
Edit: and yeah, "normal fight stuff" - he's right there, don't know what's so funny about that. I don't know any numbers about that, but i'm quite sure there's alot of punching going on in the US, especially on weekends between drunks n stuff. Yet nobody gets shot there. So "punching" is pretty normal, not just in the US, but everywhere. Being killed because of that, is, though.
|
On June 26 2013 03:23 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 03:21 natrus wrote:On June 26 2013 03:19 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- I didn't realize that travyon was so clean of blood for having supposedly brutalized someone. That's kinda my point. You can't brutalize someone and have no DNA on you. That's why i'm confused, people talk about it here like it's a fact that he smashed his face to pieces, yet there's (seemingly) medical evidence completely ruling this scenario out (and no, you can't "brutalize" someone and not have his DNA on you, it's not like he wiped it after being killed to death). It's utterly confusing, was "Guy" proven wrong in this case, or should i just disregard people who talk about brutalizing and stuff since it's most likely bs? edit: On June 26 2013 03:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler + That's one punch. Being brutalized looks way different, let me tell you. They are misrepresenting the situation, He had very lightly blacked eyes and a swollen bloody nose with 2 small cuts on the back of his head. That is all. NOT BRUTALIZED. Normal fight stuff in my estimation. lol. "normal fight stuff." regardless, whether he was "brutalized," whatever that means, is not the question. its whether he feared for his life/serious bodily injury. even if he didn't have a bruise on his body, he can still legitimately claim self defense.
Yep, and it's here that the defense is going to more or less have to show that Zimmerman is a coward lol
|
On June 26 2013 03:29 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 03:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:21 natrus wrote:On June 26 2013 03:19 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- I didn't realize that travyon was so clean of blood for having supposedly brutalized someone. That's kinda my point. You can't brutalize someone and have no DNA on you. That's why i'm confused, people talk about it here like it's a fact that he smashed his face to pieces, yet there's (seemingly) medical evidence completely ruling this scenario out (and no, you can't "brutalize" someone and not have his DNA on you, it's not like he wiped it after being killed to death). It's utterly confusing, was "Guy" proven wrong in this case, or should i just disregard people who talk about brutalizing and stuff since it's most likely bs? edit: On June 26 2013 03:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler + That's one punch. Being brutalized looks way different, let me tell you. They are misrepresenting the situation, He had very lightly blacked eyes and a swollen bloody nose with 2 small cuts on the back of his head. That is all. NOT BRUTALIZED. Normal fight stuff in my estimation. lol. "normal fight stuff." regardless, whether he was "brutalized," whatever that means, is not the question. its whether he feared for his life/serious bodily injury. even if he didn't have a bruise on his body, he can still legitimately claim self defense. Yep, and it's here that the defense is going to more or less have to show that Zimmerman is a coward lol
hmm... I never thought about that.
If they can prove his extreme cowardice, then I can see why self defense would be a valid stance to hold on to. Except for the following the victim, history of violence, history of anger, etc...
|
On June 26 2013 03:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 03:29 farvacola wrote:On June 26 2013 03:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:21 natrus wrote:On June 26 2013 03:19 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- I didn't realize that travyon was so clean of blood for having supposedly brutalized someone. That's kinda my point. You can't brutalize someone and have no DNA on you. That's why i'm confused, people talk about it here like it's a fact that he smashed his face to pieces, yet there's (seemingly) medical evidence completely ruling this scenario out (and no, you can't "brutalize" someone and not have his DNA on you, it's not like he wiped it after being killed to death). It's utterly confusing, was "Guy" proven wrong in this case, or should i just disregard people who talk about brutalizing and stuff since it's most likely bs? edit: On June 26 2013 03:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler + That's one punch. Being brutalized looks way different, let me tell you. They are misrepresenting the situation, He had very lightly blacked eyes and a swollen bloody nose with 2 small cuts on the back of his head. That is all. NOT BRUTALIZED. Normal fight stuff in my estimation. lol. "normal fight stuff." regardless, whether he was "brutalized," whatever that means, is not the question. its whether he feared for his life/serious bodily injury. even if he didn't have a bruise on his body, he can still legitimately claim self defense. Yep, and it's here that the defense is going to more or less have to show that Zimmerman is a coward lol hmm... I never thought about that. If they can prove his extreme cowardice, then I can see why self defense would be a valid stance to hold on to. Except for the following the victim, history of violence, history of anger, etc...
And the self defense training kinda contradicts this as well. I mean he wanted to be a cop right?
|
On June 26 2013 03:33 natrus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 03:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 03:29 farvacola wrote:On June 26 2013 03:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:21 natrus wrote:On June 26 2013 03:19 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- I didn't realize that travyon was so clean of blood for having supposedly brutalized someone. That's kinda my point. You can't brutalize someone and have no DNA on you. That's why i'm confused, people talk about it here like it's a fact that he smashed his face to pieces, yet there's (seemingly) medical evidence completely ruling this scenario out (and no, you can't "brutalize" someone and not have his DNA on you, it's not like he wiped it after being killed to death). It's utterly confusing, was "Guy" proven wrong in this case, or should i just disregard people who talk about brutalizing and stuff since it's most likely bs? edit: On June 26 2013 03:18 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:12 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:09 bugser wrote:
No need to take his word on it. The witness who saw what happened before the shooting said Zimmerman was on his back being brutalized by Trayvon. Since i'm not sure. Guy pointed out that none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA was found on Trayvon's body, clothing, or under his nails. Zimmerman's gun also didn't have any of Trayvon's blood or DNA, he said. I read that, what did i miss that people are still talking about the "fact" that he was brutalized? I'm trying to read up on it objectively, but either these quotes are bs, or you are talking about stuff that actually didn't happen. Could someone help with that? -.- + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler + That's one punch. Being brutalized looks way different, let me tell you. They are misrepresenting the situation, He had very lightly blacked eyes and a swollen bloody nose with 2 small cuts on the back of his head. That is all. NOT BRUTALIZED. Normal fight stuff in my estimation. lol. "normal fight stuff." regardless, whether he was "brutalized," whatever that means, is not the question. its whether he feared for his life/serious bodily injury. even if he didn't have a bruise on his body, he can still legitimately claim self defense. Yep, and it's here that the defense is going to more or less have to show that Zimmerman is a coward lol hmm... I never thought about that. If they can prove his extreme cowardice, then I can see why self defense would be a valid stance to hold on to. Except for the following the victim, history of violence, history of anger, etc... And the self defense training kinda contradicts this as well. I mean he wanted to be a cop right?
So a guy gets punched once and shoots the kid that is smaller than him...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/George-Zimmerman-Head-Injury1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.cfnews13.com/content/dam/news/images/2012/12/george-zimmerman-bloody-1203.jpg)
