|
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 04:13 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 04:11 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 04:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:04 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:27 m4inbrain 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:
[quote]
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: 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. you can still claim self defense if you initiate the confrontation. jury instruction is in op. i have yet to be punched or my head slammed against the ground. While you're right that this applies in general, Z can't, at least in my opinion and based on the stuff in the OP. If you got punched or not is completely irrelevant. Feel free to neglect or deny that alot of fights happen, we both know though that it's bs. His head wasn't slammed to the ground. Feel free to look at pictures of people that did. Just as a sidenote, i did. Not pictures though, but a fistfight between two drunks in a bar. If you think these two exploded pimples there are from being "slammed to the ground", you have to work on your perception. Not to mention that his head was never grabbed seemingly, because you can't grab without getting DNA/skinparticles under your fingernails, which was stated as a fact by that attourney. please tell me how these injuries magically appeared on his body then? self inflicted? I don't know, maybe he hit his head while falling - but please tell me honestly that you think that these two small cuts are because his head was slammed into the ground magically without touching it. Not to mention that nothing bleeds as much as a headwound, i had worse injuries than that while cutting myself with a paper. Might be a bit exaggerated, but not as far as you might think. Oh and i wouldn't rule self inflicted completely out of the picture. Not saying he did, but also not saying he could not. did he break his nose while falling too? like, did he fall on his head, get up, and then fall on his face?
Wow are you an obnoxious little guy. I already told you that i believe he was punched once, other than you guys referring to being brutalized, comparing it to lynching like the dutch referee, slamming his head into the ground etc - wanna get your head out of the butt and actually talk normal to me, or lets just stop?
|
On June 26 2013 04:17 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 04:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:11 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 04:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:04 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:27 m4inbrain 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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. you can still claim self defense if you initiate the confrontation. jury instruction is in op. i have yet to be punched or my head slammed against the ground. While you're right that this applies in general, Z can't, at least in my opinion and based on the stuff in the OP. If you got punched or not is completely irrelevant. Feel free to neglect or deny that alot of fights happen, we both know though that it's bs. His head wasn't slammed to the ground. Feel free to look at pictures of people that did. Just as a sidenote, i did. Not pictures though, but a fistfight between two drunks in a bar. If you think these two exploded pimples there are from being "slammed to the ground", you have to work on your perception. Not to mention that his head was never grabbed seemingly, because you can't grab without getting DNA/skinparticles under your fingernails, which was stated as a fact by that attourney. please tell me how these injuries magically appeared on his body then? self inflicted? I don't know, maybe he hit his head while falling - but please tell me honestly that you think that these two small cuts are because his head was slammed into the ground magically without touching it. Not to mention that nothing bleeds as much as a headwound, i had worse injuries than that while cutting myself with a paper. Might be a bit exaggerated, but not as far as you might think. Oh and i wouldn't rule self inflicted completely out of the picture. Not saying he did, but also not saying he could not. did he break his nose while falling too? like, did he fall on his head, get up, and then fall on his face? Wow are you an obnoxious little guy. I already told you that i believe he was punched once, other than you guys referring to being brutalized, comparing it to lynching like the dutch referee, slamming his head into the ground etc - wanna get your head out of the butt and actually talk normal to me, or lets just stop?
so, if there was no DNA/skinparticles on travyon, then how did he punch him? based on your previous statements that would be completely impossible. your view of the evidence is obnoxious. its not even realistic.
|
On June 26 2013 04:20 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 04:17 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 04:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:11 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 04:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:04 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:27 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:21 natrus wrote:
[quote]
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. you can still claim self defense if you initiate the confrontation. jury instruction is in op. i have yet to be punched or my head slammed against the ground. While you're right that this applies in general, Z can't, at least in my opinion and based on the stuff in the OP. If you got punched or not is completely irrelevant. Feel free to neglect or deny that alot of fights happen, we both know though that it's bs. His head wasn't slammed to the ground. Feel free to look at pictures of people that did. Just as a sidenote, i did. Not pictures though, but a fistfight between two drunks in a bar. If you think these two exploded pimples there are from being "slammed to the ground", you have to work on your perception. Not to mention that his head was never grabbed seemingly, because you can't grab without getting DNA/skinparticles under your fingernails, which was stated as a fact by that attourney. please tell me how these injuries magically appeared on his body then? self inflicted? I don't know, maybe he hit his head while falling - but please tell me honestly that you think that these two small cuts are because his head was slammed into the ground magically without touching it. Not to mention that nothing bleeds as much as a headwound, i had worse injuries than that while cutting myself with a paper. Might be a bit exaggerated, but not as far as you might think. Oh and i wouldn't rule self inflicted completely out of the picture. Not saying he did, but also not saying he could not. did he break his nose while falling too? like, did he fall on his head, get up, and then fall on his face? Wow are you an obnoxious little guy. I already told you that i believe he was punched once, other than you guys referring to being brutalized, comparing it to lynching like the dutch referee, slamming his head into the ground etc - wanna get your head out of the butt and actually talk normal to me, or lets just stop? so, if there was no DNA/skinparticles on travyon, then how did he punch him? based on your previous statements that would be completely impossible. your view of the evidence is obnoxious. its not even realistic.
Must mean Zimmerman wasn't punched very hard, at least not hard enough to leave skin marks on Travyon. Probably hard enough to knock him on his back. Doesn't take much to make a nose bleed. Takes one fall on the concrete to get a cut.
|
On June 26 2013 04:20 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 04:17 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 04:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:11 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 04:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:04 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:27 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:21 natrus wrote:
[quote]
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. you can still claim self defense if you initiate the confrontation. jury instruction is in op. i have yet to be punched or my head slammed against the ground. While you're right that this applies in general, Z can't, at least in my opinion and based on the stuff in the OP. If you got punched or not is completely irrelevant. Feel free to neglect or deny that alot of fights happen, we both know though that it's bs. His head wasn't slammed to the ground. Feel free to look at pictures of people that did. Just as a sidenote, i did. Not pictures though, but a fistfight between two drunks in a bar. If you think these two exploded pimples there are from being "slammed to the ground", you have to work on your perception. Not to mention that his head was never grabbed seemingly, because you can't grab without getting DNA/skinparticles under your fingernails, which was stated as a fact by that attourney. please tell me how these injuries magically appeared on his body then? self inflicted? I don't know, maybe he hit his head while falling - but please tell me honestly that you think that these two small cuts are because his head was slammed into the ground magically without touching it. Not to mention that nothing bleeds as much as a headwound, i had worse injuries than that while cutting myself with a paper. Might be a bit exaggerated, but not as far as you might think. Oh and i wouldn't rule self inflicted completely out of the picture. Not saying he did, but also not saying he could not. did he break his nose while falling too? like, did he fall on his head, get up, and then fall on his face? Wow are you an obnoxious little guy. I already told you that i believe he was punched once, other than you guys referring to being brutalized, comparing it to lynching like the dutch referee, slamming his head into the ground etc - wanna get your head out of the butt and actually talk normal to me, or lets just stop? so, if there was no DNA/skinparticles on travyon, then how did he punch him? based on your previous statements that would be completely impossible. your view of the evidence is obnoxious. its not even realistic.
I quote it again.
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.
If i'm not mistaken, that's based on an autopsy. Feel free to argue about it, even though i don't really get based on what you actually would, but whatever floats your boat. If "Guy" would throw that out there whithout facts supporting it, they would automatically lose the case. I don't know about your laws, but in my country, law-people aren't really allowed to lie.
Edit: also wouldn't help the case, if the official autopsy (which should be there as evidence, right?) would state otherwise. It would be actually retarded to throw such a statement out then.
|
On June 26 2013 04:25 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 04:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:17 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 04:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:11 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 04:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:04 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:27 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:23 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
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. you can still claim self defense if you initiate the confrontation. jury instruction is in op. i have yet to be punched or my head slammed against the ground. While you're right that this applies in general, Z can't, at least in my opinion and based on the stuff in the OP. If you got punched or not is completely irrelevant. Feel free to neglect or deny that alot of fights happen, we both know though that it's bs. His head wasn't slammed to the ground. Feel free to look at pictures of people that did. Just as a sidenote, i did. Not pictures though, but a fistfight between two drunks in a bar. If you think these two exploded pimples there are from being "slammed to the ground", you have to work on your perception. Not to mention that his head was never grabbed seemingly, because you can't grab without getting DNA/skinparticles under your fingernails, which was stated as a fact by that attourney. please tell me how these injuries magically appeared on his body then? self inflicted? I don't know, maybe he hit his head while falling - but please tell me honestly that you think that these two small cuts are because his head was slammed into the ground magically without touching it. Not to mention that nothing bleeds as much as a headwound, i had worse injuries than that while cutting myself with a paper. Might be a bit exaggerated, but not as far as you might think. Oh and i wouldn't rule self inflicted completely out of the picture. Not saying he did, but also not saying he could not. did he break his nose while falling too? like, did he fall on his head, get up, and then fall on his face? Wow are you an obnoxious little guy. I already told you that i believe he was punched once, other than you guys referring to being brutalized, comparing it to lynching like the dutch referee, slamming his head into the ground etc - wanna get your head out of the butt and actually talk normal to me, or lets just stop? so, if there was no DNA/skinparticles on travyon, then how did he punch him? based on your previous statements that would be completely impossible. your view of the evidence is obnoxious. its not even realistic. I quote it again. 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. If i'm not mistaken, that's based on an autopsy. Feel free to argue about it, even though i don't really get based on what you actually would, but whatever floats your boat. If "Guy" would throw that out there whithout facts supporting it, they would automatically lose the case. I don't know about your laws, but in my country, law-people aren't really allowed to lie. Edit: also wouldn't help the case, if the official autopsy (which should be there as evidence, right?) would state otherwise. It would be actually retarded to throw such a statement out then.
so, there is no DNA on trayvon according to the prosecutor. so what? that by itself means very little in the grand scheme of things.
|
On June 26 2013 04:32 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 04:25 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 04:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:17 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 04:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:11 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 04:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:04 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:27 m4inbrain wrote:
[quote]
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. you can still claim self defense if you initiate the confrontation. jury instruction is in op. i have yet to be punched or my head slammed against the ground. While you're right that this applies in general, Z can't, at least in my opinion and based on the stuff in the OP. If you got punched or not is completely irrelevant. Feel free to neglect or deny that alot of fights happen, we both know though that it's bs. His head wasn't slammed to the ground. Feel free to look at pictures of people that did. Just as a sidenote, i did. Not pictures though, but a fistfight between two drunks in a bar. If you think these two exploded pimples there are from being "slammed to the ground", you have to work on your perception. Not to mention that his head was never grabbed seemingly, because you can't grab without getting DNA/skinparticles under your fingernails, which was stated as a fact by that attourney. please tell me how these injuries magically appeared on his body then? self inflicted? I don't know, maybe he hit his head while falling - but please tell me honestly that you think that these two small cuts are because his head was slammed into the ground magically without touching it. Not to mention that nothing bleeds as much as a headwound, i had worse injuries than that while cutting myself with a paper. Might be a bit exaggerated, but not as far as you might think. Oh and i wouldn't rule self inflicted completely out of the picture. Not saying he did, but also not saying he could not. did he break his nose while falling too? like, did he fall on his head, get up, and then fall on his face? Wow are you an obnoxious little guy. I already told you that i believe he was punched once, other than you guys referring to being brutalized, comparing it to lynching like the dutch referee, slamming his head into the ground etc - wanna get your head out of the butt and actually talk normal to me, or lets just stop? so, if there was no DNA/skinparticles on travyon, then how did he punch him? based on your previous statements that would be completely impossible. your view of the evidence is obnoxious. its not even realistic. I quote it again. 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. If i'm not mistaken, that's based on an autopsy. Feel free to argue about it, even though i don't really get based on what you actually would, but whatever floats your boat. If "Guy" would throw that out there whithout facts supporting it, they would automatically lose the case. I don't know about your laws, but in my country, law-people aren't really allowed to lie. Edit: also wouldn't help the case, if the official autopsy (which should be there as evidence, right?) would state otherwise. It would be actually retarded to throw such a statement out then. so, there is no DNA on trayvon according to the prosecutor. so what? that by itself means very little in the grand scheme of things.
repeatedly punching a bloody nose means that blood will be on the fist that repeatedly punched said bloody nose.
No blood means no repeat punching.
No repeat punching means that evidence suggests that Zimmerman was punched only once.
|
|
|
On June 26 2013 04:32 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 04:25 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 04:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:17 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 04:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:11 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 04:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:04 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 03:27 m4inbrain wrote:
[quote]
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. you can still claim self defense if you initiate the confrontation. jury instruction is in op. i have yet to be punched or my head slammed against the ground. While you're right that this applies in general, Z can't, at least in my opinion and based on the stuff in the OP. If you got punched or not is completely irrelevant. Feel free to neglect or deny that alot of fights happen, we both know though that it's bs. His head wasn't slammed to the ground. Feel free to look at pictures of people that did. Just as a sidenote, i did. Not pictures though, but a fistfight between two drunks in a bar. If you think these two exploded pimples there are from being "slammed to the ground", you have to work on your perception. Not to mention that his head was never grabbed seemingly, because you can't grab without getting DNA/skinparticles under your fingernails, which was stated as a fact by that attourney. please tell me how these injuries magically appeared on his body then? self inflicted? I don't know, maybe he hit his head while falling - but please tell me honestly that you think that these two small cuts are because his head was slammed into the ground magically without touching it. Not to mention that nothing bleeds as much as a headwound, i had worse injuries than that while cutting myself with a paper. Might be a bit exaggerated, but not as far as you might think. Oh and i wouldn't rule self inflicted completely out of the picture. Not saying he did, but also not saying he could not. did he break his nose while falling too? like, did he fall on his head, get up, and then fall on his face? Wow are you an obnoxious little guy. I already told you that i believe he was punched once, other than you guys referring to being brutalized, comparing it to lynching like the dutch referee, slamming his head into the ground etc - wanna get your head out of the butt and actually talk normal to me, or lets just stop? so, if there was no DNA/skinparticles on travyon, then how did he punch him? based on your previous statements that would be completely impossible. your view of the evidence is obnoxious. its not even realistic. I quote it again. 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. If i'm not mistaken, that's based on an autopsy. Feel free to argue about it, even though i don't really get based on what you actually would, but whatever floats your boat. If "Guy" would throw that out there whithout facts supporting it, they would automatically lose the case. I don't know about your laws, but in my country, law-people aren't really allowed to lie. Edit: also wouldn't help the case, if the official autopsy (which should be there as evidence, right?) would state otherwise. It would be actually retarded to throw such a statement out then. so, there is no DNA on trayvon according to the prosecutor. so what? that by itself means very little in the grand scheme of things.
Since you know where i got in, namely the question if people are talking bullshit here or in the news i read, it's a big difference. That by itself btw means that there wasn't any "brutalizing", "smashing his head against conrete", "fighting him MMA Style" and whatever was spouted out here happened.
I was trying to get actual facts by reading here. Fact is, there wasn't such thing. Didn't happen. People here base their arguments and stuff on that. Worthless. Also, saying "means very little in the grand scheme" is basically telling me that you're not objective. It's telling alot, it just doesn't help "your" case.
edit
No repeat punching means that evidence suggests that Zimmerman was punched only once.
Which is what i'm saying all along, even if it's neglected by phreak.
|
On June 26 2013 04:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 04:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:25 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 04:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:17 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 04:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:11 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 04:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:04 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:53 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
you can still claim self defense if you initiate the confrontation. jury instruction is in op.
i have yet to be punched or my head slammed against the ground. While you're right that this applies in general, Z can't, at least in my opinion and based on the stuff in the OP. If you got punched or not is completely irrelevant. Feel free to neglect or deny that alot of fights happen, we both know though that it's bs. His head wasn't slammed to the ground. Feel free to look at pictures of people that did. Just as a sidenote, i did. Not pictures though, but a fistfight between two drunks in a bar. If you think these two exploded pimples there are from being "slammed to the ground", you have to work on your perception. Not to mention that his head was never grabbed seemingly, because you can't grab without getting DNA/skinparticles under your fingernails, which was stated as a fact by that attourney. please tell me how these injuries magically appeared on his body then? self inflicted? I don't know, maybe he hit his head while falling - but please tell me honestly that you think that these two small cuts are because his head was slammed into the ground magically without touching it. Not to mention that nothing bleeds as much as a headwound, i had worse injuries than that while cutting myself with a paper. Might be a bit exaggerated, but not as far as you might think. Oh and i wouldn't rule self inflicted completely out of the picture. Not saying he did, but also not saying he could not. did he break his nose while falling too? like, did he fall on his head, get up, and then fall on his face? Wow are you an obnoxious little guy. I already told you that i believe he was punched once, other than you guys referring to being brutalized, comparing it to lynching like the dutch referee, slamming his head into the ground etc - wanna get your head out of the butt and actually talk normal to me, or lets just stop? so, if there was no DNA/skinparticles on travyon, then how did he punch him? based on your previous statements that would be completely impossible. your view of the evidence is obnoxious. its not even realistic. I quote it again. 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. If i'm not mistaken, that's based on an autopsy. Feel free to argue about it, even though i don't really get based on what you actually would, but whatever floats your boat. If "Guy" would throw that out there whithout facts supporting it, they would automatically lose the case. I don't know about your laws, but in my country, law-people aren't really allowed to lie. Edit: also wouldn't help the case, if the official autopsy (which should be there as evidence, right?) would state otherwise. It would be actually retarded to throw such a statement out then. so, there is no DNA on trayvon according to the prosecutor. so what? that by itself means very little in the grand scheme of things. repeatedly punching a bloody nose means that blood will be on the fist that repeatedly punched said bloody nose. No blood means no repeat punching. No repeat punching means that evidence suggests that Zimmerman was punched only once.
zimmerman doesnt say that he was repeatedly punched. he said he was punched once and then his head slammed against the ground. you can punch someone once, jump on top of them, grab their shoulders and slam their head against the ground.....all without leaving DNA i assume.
On June 26 2013 04:37 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 04:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:25 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 04:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:17 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 04:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:11 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 04:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:04 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 03:53 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
you can still claim self defense if you initiate the confrontation. jury instruction is in op.
i have yet to be punched or my head slammed against the ground. While you're right that this applies in general, Z can't, at least in my opinion and based on the stuff in the OP. If you got punched or not is completely irrelevant. Feel free to neglect or deny that alot of fights happen, we both know though that it's bs. His head wasn't slammed to the ground. Feel free to look at pictures of people that did. Just as a sidenote, i did. Not pictures though, but a fistfight between two drunks in a bar. If you think these two exploded pimples there are from being "slammed to the ground", you have to work on your perception. Not to mention that his head was never grabbed seemingly, because you can't grab without getting DNA/skinparticles under your fingernails, which was stated as a fact by that attourney. please tell me how these injuries magically appeared on his body then? self inflicted? I don't know, maybe he hit his head while falling - but please tell me honestly that you think that these two small cuts are because his head was slammed into the ground magically without touching it. Not to mention that nothing bleeds as much as a headwound, i had worse injuries than that while cutting myself with a paper. Might be a bit exaggerated, but not as far as you might think. Oh and i wouldn't rule self inflicted completely out of the picture. Not saying he did, but also not saying he could not. did he break his nose while falling too? like, did he fall on his head, get up, and then fall on his face? Wow are you an obnoxious little guy. I already told you that i believe he was punched once, other than you guys referring to being brutalized, comparing it to lynching like the dutch referee, slamming his head into the ground etc - wanna get your head out of the butt and actually talk normal to me, or lets just stop? so, if there was no DNA/skinparticles on travyon, then how did he punch him? based on your previous statements that would be completely impossible. your view of the evidence is obnoxious. its not even realistic. I quote it again. 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. If i'm not mistaken, that's based on an autopsy. Feel free to argue about it, even though i don't really get based on what you actually would, but whatever floats your boat. If "Guy" would throw that out there whithout facts supporting it, they would automatically lose the case. I don't know about your laws, but in my country, law-people aren't really allowed to lie. Edit: also wouldn't help the case, if the official autopsy (which should be there as evidence, right?) would state otherwise. It would be actually retarded to throw such a statement out then. so, there is no DNA on trayvon according to the prosecutor. so what? that by itself means very little in the grand scheme of things. Since you know where i got in, namely the question if people are talking bullshit here or in the news i read, it's a big difference. That by itself btw means that there wasn't any "brutalizing", "smashing his head against conrete", "fighting him MMA Style" and whatever was spouted out here happened. I was trying to get actual facts by reading here. Fact is, there wasn't such thing. Didn't happen. People here base their arguments and stuff on that. Worthless. Also, saying "means very little in the grand scheme" is basically telling me that you're not objective. It's telling alot, it just doesn't help " your" case. edit Show nested quote +No repeat punching means that evidence suggests that Zimmerman was punched only once. Which is what i'm saying all along, even if it's neglected by phreak.
i dont know what people mean by "brutalizing" nor have i used the term. zimmerman has always claimed a single punch into having his head slammed on the ground.
|
On June 26 2013 04:37 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 04:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 04:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:25 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 04:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:17 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 04:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:11 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 04:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:04 m4inbrain wrote:
[quote]
While you're right that this applies in general, Z can't, at least in my opinion and based on the stuff in the OP. If you got punched or not is completely irrelevant. Feel free to neglect or deny that alot of fights happen, we both know though that it's bs. His head wasn't slammed to the ground. Feel free to look at pictures of people that did. Just as a sidenote, i did. Not pictures though, but a fistfight between two drunks in a bar. If you think these two exploded pimples there are from being "slammed to the ground", you have to work on your perception. Not to mention that his head was never grabbed seemingly, because you can't grab without getting DNA/skinparticles under your fingernails, which was stated as a fact by that attourney.
please tell me how these injuries magically appeared on his body then? self inflicted? I don't know, maybe he hit his head while falling - but please tell me honestly that you think that these two small cuts are because his head was slammed into the ground magically without touching it. Not to mention that nothing bleeds as much as a headwound, i had worse injuries than that while cutting myself with a paper. Might be a bit exaggerated, but not as far as you might think. Oh and i wouldn't rule self inflicted completely out of the picture. Not saying he did, but also not saying he could not. did he break his nose while falling too? like, did he fall on his head, get up, and then fall on his face? Wow are you an obnoxious little guy. I already told you that i believe he was punched once, other than you guys referring to being brutalized, comparing it to lynching like the dutch referee, slamming his head into the ground etc - wanna get your head out of the butt and actually talk normal to me, or lets just stop? so, if there was no DNA/skinparticles on travyon, then how did he punch him? based on your previous statements that would be completely impossible. your view of the evidence is obnoxious. its not even realistic. I quote it again. 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. If i'm not mistaken, that's based on an autopsy. Feel free to argue about it, even though i don't really get based on what you actually would, but whatever floats your boat. If "Guy" would throw that out there whithout facts supporting it, they would automatically lose the case. I don't know about your laws, but in my country, law-people aren't really allowed to lie. Edit: also wouldn't help the case, if the official autopsy (which should be there as evidence, right?) would state otherwise. It would be actually retarded to throw such a statement out then. so, there is no DNA on trayvon according to the prosecutor. so what? that by itself means very little in the grand scheme of things. repeatedly punching a bloody nose means that blood will be on the fist that repeatedly punched said bloody nose. No blood means no repeat punching. No repeat punching means that evidence suggests that Zimmerman was punched only once. zimmerman doesnt say that he was repeatedly punched. he said he was punched once and then his head slammed against the ground. you can punch someone once, jump on top of them, grab their shoulders and slam their head against the ground.....all without leaving DNA i assume.
Yeah, no. You can shake someone on his shoulders, but you can't grab shoulders and slam the head in the ground.. And good thing that he actually said he was punched only once. Then at least i'm convinced that the cuts on the back are from his fall to the ground. Especially considering that there's no fricking blood smeared, which would happen if his head got dipped back in the blood on the ground.
But i guess that's to much to think about.
Edit: i'm not arguing about the actual case even, but about that what people are discussing here. Half of it is horseshit based on something that didn't happen, not even remotely.
|
On June 26 2013 04:37 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 04:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 26 2013 04:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:25 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 04:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:17 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 04:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:11 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 04:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:04 m4inbrain wrote:
[quote]
While you're right that this applies in general, Z can't, at least in my opinion and based on the stuff in the OP. If you got punched or not is completely irrelevant. Feel free to neglect or deny that alot of fights happen, we both know though that it's bs. His head wasn't slammed to the ground. Feel free to look at pictures of people that did. Just as a sidenote, i did. Not pictures though, but a fistfight between two drunks in a bar. If you think these two exploded pimples there are from being "slammed to the ground", you have to work on your perception. Not to mention that his head was never grabbed seemingly, because you can't grab without getting DNA/skinparticles under your fingernails, which was stated as a fact by that attourney.
please tell me how these injuries magically appeared on his body then? self inflicted? I don't know, maybe he hit his head while falling - but please tell me honestly that you think that these two small cuts are because his head was slammed into the ground magically without touching it. Not to mention that nothing bleeds as much as a headwound, i had worse injuries than that while cutting myself with a paper. Might be a bit exaggerated, but not as far as you might think. Oh and i wouldn't rule self inflicted completely out of the picture. Not saying he did, but also not saying he could not. did he break his nose while falling too? like, did he fall on his head, get up, and then fall on his face? Wow are you an obnoxious little guy. I already told you that i believe he was punched once, other than you guys referring to being brutalized, comparing it to lynching like the dutch referee, slamming his head into the ground etc - wanna get your head out of the butt and actually talk normal to me, or lets just stop? so, if there was no DNA/skinparticles on travyon, then how did he punch him? based on your previous statements that would be completely impossible. your view of the evidence is obnoxious. its not even realistic. I quote it again. 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. If i'm not mistaken, that's based on an autopsy. Feel free to argue about it, even though i don't really get based on what you actually would, but whatever floats your boat. If "Guy" would throw that out there whithout facts supporting it, they would automatically lose the case. I don't know about your laws, but in my country, law-people aren't really allowed to lie. Edit: also wouldn't help the case, if the official autopsy (which should be there as evidence, right?) would state otherwise. It would be actually retarded to throw such a statement out then. so, there is no DNA on trayvon according to the prosecutor. so what? that by itself means very little in the grand scheme of things. repeatedly punching a bloody nose means that blood will be on the fist that repeatedly punched said bloody nose. No blood means no repeat punching. No repeat punching means that evidence suggests that Zimmerman was punched only once. zimmerman doesnt say that he was repeatedly punched. he said he was punched once and then his head slammed against the ground. you can punch someone once, jump on top of them, grab their shoulders and slam their head against the ground.....all without leaving DNA i assume. Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 04:37 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 04:32 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:25 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 04:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:17 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 04:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:11 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 04:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 26 2013 04:04 m4inbrain wrote:
[quote]
While you're right that this applies in general, Z can't, at least in my opinion and based on the stuff in the OP. If you got punched or not is completely irrelevant. Feel free to neglect or deny that alot of fights happen, we both know though that it's bs. His head wasn't slammed to the ground. Feel free to look at pictures of people that did. Just as a sidenote, i did. Not pictures though, but a fistfight between two drunks in a bar. If you think these two exploded pimples there are from being "slammed to the ground", you have to work on your perception. Not to mention that his head was never grabbed seemingly, because you can't grab without getting DNA/skinparticles under your fingernails, which was stated as a fact by that attourney.
please tell me how these injuries magically appeared on his body then? self inflicted? I don't know, maybe he hit his head while falling - but please tell me honestly that you think that these two small cuts are because his head was slammed into the ground magically without touching it. Not to mention that nothing bleeds as much as a headwound, i had worse injuries than that while cutting myself with a paper. Might be a bit exaggerated, but not as far as you might think. Oh and i wouldn't rule self inflicted completely out of the picture. Not saying he did, but also not saying he could not. did he break his nose while falling too? like, did he fall on his head, get up, and then fall on his face? Wow are you an obnoxious little guy. I already told you that i believe he was punched once, other than you guys referring to being brutalized, comparing it to lynching like the dutch referee, slamming his head into the ground etc - wanna get your head out of the butt and actually talk normal to me, or lets just stop? so, if there was no DNA/skinparticles on travyon, then how did he punch him? based on your previous statements that would be completely impossible. your view of the evidence is obnoxious. its not even realistic. I quote it again. 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. If i'm not mistaken, that's based on an autopsy. Feel free to argue about it, even though i don't really get based on what you actually would, but whatever floats your boat. If "Guy" would throw that out there whithout facts supporting it, they would automatically lose the case. I don't know about your laws, but in my country, law-people aren't really allowed to lie. Edit: also wouldn't help the case, if the official autopsy (which should be there as evidence, right?) would state otherwise. It would be actually retarded to throw such a statement out then. so, there is no DNA on trayvon according to the prosecutor. so what? that by itself means very little in the grand scheme of things. Since you know where i got in, namely the question if people are talking bullshit here or in the news i read, it's a big difference. That by itself btw means that there wasn't any "brutalizing", "smashing his head against conrete", "fighting him MMA Style" and whatever was spouted out here happened. I was trying to get actual facts by reading here. Fact is, there wasn't such thing. Didn't happen. People here base their arguments and stuff on that. Worthless. Also, saying "means very little in the grand scheme" is basically telling me that you're not objective. It's telling alot, it just doesn't help " your" case. edit No repeat punching means that evidence suggests that Zimmerman was punched only once. Which is what i'm saying all along, even if it's neglected by phreak. i dont know what people mean by "brutalizing" nor have i used the term. zimmerman has always claimed a single punch into having his head slammed on the ground.
While holding a head that has blood dripping from the nose, as the fingers wrap around the cranium that is also bleeding. While the person is supposedly yelling which should leave a combination of saliva and blood on the victim because when you hold someone's head that close, you're face and chest will be close as well.
|
yeah, you guys seem pretty results oriented in your approach to this.
if you want to see the actual injuries rather than speculating about them, they are discussing them now on the live trial.
|
On June 26 2013 04:43 dAPhREAk wrote:
yeah, you guys seem pretty results oriented in your approach to this.
if you want to see the actual injuries rather than speculating about them, they are discussing them now on the live trial.
Ty for the headsup, watching.
|
interesting. she just said there was no blood on the sidewalk. i wonder if they used one of those black light thingies.
|
|
|
the tech who did the evidence after the shooting.
nm
|
On June 26 2013 04:52 dAPhREAk wrote:
interesting. she just said there was no blood on the sidewalk. i wonder if they used one of those black light thingies.
Surprisingly unbloody for someone getting beaten to a pulp. And i don't believe that the dead kid wiped the blood away, leading to me thinking that there actually wasn't any blood on the sidewalk. Which means the whole story of his head being slammed on the sidewalk is at least "suspicious".
edit: but i missed the part about his injuries, just saw a picture of his head briefly and then they went on. 
|
On June 26 2013 04:55 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 04:52 dAPhREAk wrote:
interesting. she just said there was no blood on the sidewalk. i wonder if they used one of those black light thingies. Surprisingly unbloody for someone getting beaten to a pulp. And i don't believe that the dead kid wiped the blood away, leading to me thinking that there actually wasn't any blood on the sidewalk. Which means the whole story of his head being slammed on the sidewalk is at least "suspicious". edit: but i missed the part about his injuries, just saw a picture of his head briefly and then they went on.
agreed. defense didnt ask any follow up questions either. curious.
|
On June 26 2013 04:56 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 04:55 m4inbrain wrote:On June 26 2013 04:52 dAPhREAk wrote:
interesting. she just said there was no blood on the sidewalk. i wonder if they used one of those black light thingies. Surprisingly unbloody for someone getting beaten to a pulp. And i don't believe that the dead kid wiped the blood away, leading to me thinking that there actually wasn't any blood on the sidewalk. Which means the whole story of his head being slammed on the sidewalk is at least "suspicious". edit: but i missed the part about his injuries, just saw a picture of his head briefly and then they went on. agreed. defense didnt ask any follow up questions either. curious.
really big missed opportunity there
|
If there's no blood on the sidewalk or on Martin... where the hell did the blood come go?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
