EPTOn December 04 2012 08:50 dAPhREAk wrote:
wow, you are fast. I was just about to post it.
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/e5atjiWTNf8.3KCIw0xiBQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0xMDI0O3E9Nzk7dz03NjU-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2012-12-03T203324Z_1211378952_TM3E8C315PO01_RTRMADP_3_USA-FLORIDA-SHOOTING.JPG)
wow, you are fast. I was just about to post it.
+ Show Spoiler +
Why in hell did it take them 9 months to release this photo?
Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 76
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
TheRabidDeer
United States3806 Posts
Why in hell did it take them 9 months to release this photo? | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On December 04 2012 09:15 TheRabidDeer wrote: Why in hell did it take them 9 months to release this photo? i was pondering the same thing. whether zimmerman is guilty or not, does it not bother people that the prosecution was sitting on this photo (and refusing to give it to defense counsel) while the media was basically saying that there is no evidence of injuries to zimmerman? its absurd. so much gamesmanship makes people distrust prosecutors. its the duke lacrosse case all over again. oh, and to answer your question, they probably didnt release it because it hurts their case. but thats just me speculating. edit: correction, they produced a black and white photo, but not the color photo. | ||
|
ClanRH.TV
United States462 Posts
| ||
|
Zealotdriver
United States1557 Posts
| ||
|
discomatt
113 Posts
On December 04 2012 09:25 ClanRH.TV wrote: Instead of the title "Blood new photo released of Trayvon martins killer," they could have said "New Photo's of George Martin Released." Guilty until proven innocent. Well, he did kill Martin. The legal battle is whether or not it was murder. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On December 04 2012 09:11 docvoc wrote: Unless you haven't been following it for a while now, the Martin case refused to accept that Martin fought back and said that Zimmerman was a liar. They can't change their case now because that would show not just weakness but would also show that they were lying earlier. He didn't stalk Martin in any way as the case has panned out. Zimmerman can't lose because the public now sees that not only did he not stalk Martin, he used lethal force in a case where Martin did attack Zimmerman in a way that injured him. Not only that, but Zimmerman was in a position of power and made the decision to end the fight after Martin initiated. Zimmerman really can't lose at this point. Glad to see another legal eagle on TL. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On December 04 2012 09:28 Zealotdriver wrote: It's unclear to me how this photo changes anything. I thought we knew Zimmerman sustained some injuries from fighting with Martin. We don't know and will never know which of the two initiated violence. You'd be surprised how many people here were even denying that he sustained any injuries. But if you want to talk about the case, it would definitely have an impact on a jury to see this sort of thing. | ||
|
Alay
United States660 Posts
On December 04 2012 09:28 Zealotdriver wrote: It's unclear to me how this photo changes anything. I thought we knew Zimmerman sustained some injuries from fighting with Martin. We don't know and will never know which of the two initiated violence. I believe it's because the prosecution was making their case on that Martin never fought back. | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
On December 04 2012 09:49 Alay wrote: I believe it's because the prosecution was making their case on that Martin never fought back. Because for the longest time the media portrayed Martin as the victim and Zimmerman as the aggressor. | ||
|
GrapeApe
1053 Posts
| ||
|
ClanRH.TV
United States462 Posts
On December 04 2012 09:31 discomatt wrote: Well, he did kill Martin. The legal battle is whether or not it was murder. I think you know what I was saying and I shouldn't have to explain my purpose. However, just in case you don't, the way the sentence is structured and phrased clearly sheds negative light on Zimmerman. You don't call someone who was in fear for their life and acted in self-defense (not that this is necessarily the case here...I just don't know) a killer. The statement is biased and that's all there is to it. | ||
|
ClanRH.TV
United States462 Posts
On December 04 2012 10:19 GrapeApe wrote: So, I haven't been keeping up but has this case shifted directions from the "omg hang Zimmerman" to "okay, this might have been self defense/not so cut and dry after all?" Depends on who you ask and what news station they've been watching. It's pathetic how media does that. | ||
|
Brett
Australia3822 Posts
The prosecution have a duty to disclose and present all material evidence and witnesses in a case, not just the material or persons who will assist their position. Their duty is higher than simply prosecuting an accused. Disgusts me. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On December 04 2012 08:59 dAPhREAk wrote: its certainly damaging evidence against the prosecution, but if zimmerman accosted trayvon, trayvon hit zimmerman and then zimmerman shot trayvon, zimmerman can still end up in prison for manslaughter/murder. however, the problem is proving any of it. few "eye" witnesses, and if i recall correctly, most of them favored zimmerman. zimmerman may not even need to take the stand in his own defense (self defense puts the burden on prosecution in florida). the standard is reasonable doubt. the prosecution MUST DISPROVE SELF DEFENSE beyond a reasonable doubt. Without a witness, any halfway decent trial lawyer should win. I know I could win this one. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On December 04 2012 10:30 Brett wrote: I see this shit nearly every day in my job. Evidence that is quite possibly exculpatory excluded from briefs of evidence during discovery and only surfacing when defence learns of its existence (often through sheer luck or accident) or otherwise requests disclosure. The prosecution have a duty to disclose and present all material evidence and witnesses in a case, not just the material or persons who will assist their position. Their duty is higher than simply prosecuting an accused. Disgusts me. Worse than that, but here in the U.S., it's required by law that the prosecution turn over exculpatory evidence (Brady material) to the defense. To not do so is game over. In reality, prosecutors break the law all the fucking time. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
On December 04 2012 10:30 Brett wrote: I see this shit nearly every day in my job. Evidence that is quite possibly exculpatory excluded from briefs of evidence during discovery and only surfacing when defence learns of its existence (often through sheer luck or accident) or otherwise requests disclosure. The prosecution have a duty to disclose and present all material evidence and witnesses in a case, not just the material or persons who will assist their position. Their duty is higher than simply prosecuting an accused. Disgusts me. See, this sort of thing worries me, as the government and judicial infrastructure of Florida has a terrible track record, and who can even say the truth of all this with Floridian DA's and police in control of evidence. I'll admit that I think Zimmerman ought to be found guilty of manslaughter, provided current public evidence, but I kind of want the prosecution to have their face smashed in the mud in the hopes that someone takes a closer look at what is actually going on in states like Florida. The incompetence is appalling. | ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
On December 04 2012 10:30 Brett wrote: I see this shit nearly every day in my job. Evidence that is quite possibly exculpatory excluded from briefs of evidence during discovery and only surfacing when defence learns of its existence (often through sheer luck or accident) or otherwise requests disclosure. The prosecution have a duty to disclose and present all material evidence and witnesses in a case, not just the material or persons who will assist their position. Their duty is higher than simply prosecuting an accused. Disgusts me. Pretty sure Zimmerman's attorneys knew about it but it just took this long to get it released. "So... after you were taken to the police station, did the police take photos of your injuries?" "Yes" Viola. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On December 04 2012 11:03 Sufficiency wrote: Pretty sure Zimmerman's attorneys knew about it but it just took this long to get it released. "So... after you were taken to the police station, did the police take photos of your injuries?" "Yes" Viola. from the link: The state had previously provided a black-and-white copy of the image, the attorneys wrote on the website. "This high resolution digital file was finally provided to the defense on October 29." So yeah, the attorneys knew it existed for a long time now. They got the color version about a month ago. | ||
|
stevelouise
Canada9 Posts
On December 04 2012 10:19 GrapeApe wrote: So, I haven't been keeping up but has this case shifted directions from the "omg hang Zimmerman" to "okay, this might have been self defense/not so cut and dry after all?" It was very obvious from the start that Zimmerman was innocent. The narrative of some blood crazed neighborhood watchman out to murder innocent upstanding black children with great futures ahead of them for no reason other than his purely evil racist nature simply didn't make sense. Narratives like that only make sense in the deluded mind of left wing liberals who have been indoctrinated from birth to have a strong faith based belief in Black victimhood. There was, from the day after the shooting, a witness saying he saw Zimmerman being pummeled as he screamed for help. Just like that didn't sway the social justice crusaders, this new image will not either. They are extremely deluded and vicious people who are motivated by hatred and emotion, rather than logic and the available facts of the case. Funny how there is nary a peep out of them when Blacks kill other Blacks. They only pretend to care about Black deaths when it can be shoehorned into their fantasy world of Blacks being poor oppressed victims at the hands of evil White devils. http://i.imgur.com/tIVG8.jpg | ||
|
stevelouise
Canada9 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=322664 I wonder: do leftists ever get sick of being wrong? When they are so consistently wrong and time and time again embarrass themselves when they jump on politically correct bandwagons (Duke lacrosse rape hoax comes to mind), you would expect them to reassess the beliefs they hold so dear. | ||
| ||
