THIS JUST IN on the Zimmerman case....

[Bigfoot]

C'mon! He may not be guilty of a crime, but he KILLED Trayvon Martin; he apologized today, for what its worth........................................

Yeah, and Trayvon would still be alive if he hadn't attacked Zimmerman. In the same circumstances I would have also shot the SOB.

Do you KNOW who attacked WHOM? The State sees the situation in a different light.

What do you think happened to the back of Zimmerman's head? After he lost track of Trayvon's location, which is on tape in the phone call to the police.

 

[Peach]

Yeah, and Trayvon would still be alive if he hadn't attacked Zimmerman. In the same circumstances I would have also shot the SOB.

Do you KNOW who attacked WHOM? The State sees the situation in a different light.

What do you think happened to the back of Zimmerman's head? After he lost track of Trayvon's location, which is on tape in the phone call to the police.

I do not know, but from what I read, Zimmerman's attorney tried to make mincemeat out of the probable cause affidavit, and failed. He'll be ready to attack the Information when filed, it appears.

 

[Bigfoot]

Do you KNOW who attacked WHOM? The State sees the situation in a different light.

What do you think happened to the back of Zimmerman's head? After he lost track of Trayvon's location, which is on tape in the phone call to the police.

I do not know, but from what I read, Zimmerman's attorney tried to make mincemeat out of the probable cause affidavit, and failed. He'll be ready to attack the Information when filed, it appears.

Yeah, (as of now) I think the guy deserves an acquittal but there is always the possibility of a Reckless Endangerment plea. ~shrug~ Who knows how it will play out until ALL of the evidence is made public. So far it looks like the Prosecutor filed a politically motivated breif to the court with only one-sided evidence.

 

[Bigfoot]

Trayvom Martin is dead. That's bad for him and his family.

 

[Foxfyre]

C'mon! He may not be guilty of a crime, but he KILLED Trayvon Martin; he apologized today, for what its worth........................................

Yeah, and Trayvon would still be alive if he hadn't attacked Zimmerman. In the same circumstances I would have also shot the SOB.

Do you KNOW who attacked WHOM? The State sees the situation in a different light.

As does George Zimmerman and the defense. We don't know who attacked whom. Which is why it is so frustrating to those of us who see it as blatantly wrong, cruel, and inhumane to attempt to destroy either one of them on message boards or in the media because we do not know who was a fault in this particular case.

 

[Peach]

What do you think happened to the back of Zimmerman's head? After he lost track of Trayvon's location, which is on tape in the phone call to the police.

I do not know, but from what I read, Zimmerman's attorney tried to make mincemeat out of the probable cause affidavit, and failed. He'll be ready to attack the Information when filed, it appears.

Yeah, (as of now) I think the guy deserves an acquittal but there is always the possibility of a Reckless Endangerment plea. ~shrug~ Who knows how it will play out until ALL of the evidence is made public. So far it looks like the Prosecutor filed a politically motivated breif to the court with only one-sided evidence.

The State has its work cut out for them. Plenty of Zimmerman sympathizers, and he has plenty of chances to bring HIS side of the story out.

 

[syrenn]

When you get bail, you have a choice of paying 100% with a full refund, or 10% with no refund. Either way, Zimmerman will make a million dollars off of a book deal.

hopefully he makes millions by suing the media!

C'mon! He may not be guilty of a crime, but he KILLED Trayvon Martin; he apologized today, for what its worth........................................

I am not saying he did not kill martin. I am saying he should sue the media for billions!

 

[Peach]

hopefully he makes millions by suing the media!

C'mon! He may not be guilty of a crime, but he KILLED Trayvon Martin; he apologized today, for what its worth........................................

I am not saying he did not kill martin. I am saying he should sue the media for billions!

Has Casey Anthony?

 

[syrenn]

C'mon! He may not be guilty of a crime, but he KILLED Trayvon Martin; he apologized today, for what its worth........................................

I am not saying he did not kill martin. I am saying he should sue the media for billions!

Has Casey Anthony?

has she tried?

 

[Peach]

I am not saying he did not kill martin. I am saying he should sue the media for billions!

Has Casey Anthony?

has she tried?

I don't know, but she was subject to trial by media also.

 

[syrenn]

Has Casey Anthony?

has she tried?

I don't know, but she was subject to trial by media also.

Not quite the same as editing a 911 call to spin racial hatred.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am not saying he did not kill martin. I am saying he should sue the media for billions!

Has Casey Anthony?

has she tried?

I don't recall the same level of speculation re Casey Anthony prior to the trial. I didn't even KNOW about Casey Anthony prior to that high profile trial. But what made that particular case different is that it is the lie after lie after lie that Casey Anthony told to her parents, to the police, to the media, and the huge inconsistencies that were obvious to everybody.

I understand that the baby sitter that Anthony accused is now sueing Anthony for defamation. So far that isn't getting a lot of media play though.

I don't think there has yet been any evidence of any lie told by George Zimmerman in the Zimmerman/Martin case. A lie may be determined in the trial process, but right now there is no evidence that any of us have whether Martin or Zimmerman or both who were the aggressor in this case and/or who was at fault or at the most fault. We don't know whether Zimmerman's version is the way it was or not. And Martin can't provide a version.

 

[Jackson]

Has Casey Anthony?

has she tried?

I don't know, but she was subject to trial by media also.

We saw the evidence in the Anthony trial. But this isn't about that circus.

 

[Liability]

-- from Drudge front page.

I am beginning to think that Zimmerman MAY have had his noggin cracked onto the sidewalk -- kinda like what he said.

 

[Foxfyre]

-- from Drudge front page.

I am beginning to think that Zimmerman MAY have had his noggin cracked onto the sidewalk -- kinda like what he said.

Any scalp wound bleeds profusely but, if the wounds are superficial and the person has normal blood clotting, the bleeding stops pretty quickly. It is likely the EMTs cleaned up the mess to make sure there were no serious wounds which would explain why there was no visible blood on his scalp by the time they got to the police station. And the wounds as well as the developing bruise would certainly have healed up by the time of his arraignment. Certainly the appearance in that photo, if it is a legitimate photo, would support Zimmerman's version of what was happening to him at the time he shot Martin.

 

[Liability]

Photo Of Zimmerman's Bloodied Head Released

The ABC News video also reveals (voice over) that there WAS gun shot residue clearly visible on Trayvon's hooded sweatshirt. That's significant because it means that the gun was pretty damn close to the gun shot victim at the moment the gun was fired which is CONSISTENT with a self-defense claim. (That is, if the gun was fired from more than 1 1/2 to 3 feet away which would leave no GSR evidence on the sweatshirt, it would be more difficult to claim that he was in a struggle with the kid at that particular moment).

So far we STILL don't have sufficient evidence to properly conclude all that much. But we DO now, at least, know that two important factors are consistent with what Zimmerman said back on the day of the shooting. That is clearly good news for Zimmerman.

 

[taichiliberal]

Photo Of Zimmerman's Bloodied Head Released

The ABC News video also reveals (voice over) that there WAS gun shot residue clearly visible on Trayvon's hooded sweatshirt. That's significant because it means that the gun was pretty damn close to the gun shot victim at the moment the gun was fired which is CONSISTENT with a self-defense claim. (That is, if the gun was fired from more than 1 1/2 to 3 feet away which would leave no GSR evidence on the sweatshirt, it would be more difficult to claim that he was in a struggle with the kid at that particular moment).

So far we STILL don't have sufficient evidence to properly conclude all that much. But we DO now, at least, know that two important factors are consistent with what Zimmerman said back on the day of the shooting. That is clearly good news for Zimmerman.

Since Martin is DEAD and cannot testify, why are we to automatically buy into Zimmerman's initial story? Remember, ZIMMERMAN PURSUED MARTIN. Essentially, you had Zimmerman FOLLOWING Martin around.....an unidentified, creepy guy following Martin in a car, at one time Martin approaches to see who's in the car, and then (according to Zimmerman) "runs away". Zimmerman PURSUES AFTER BEING TOLD THAT COPS ARE ON THE WAY AND IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO CONTINUE PURSUIT.

After that, we're lead to believe that Martin ATTACKED Zimmerman. But keep in mind that Zimmerman WOULD HAVE HAD TO GOTTEN OUT OF HIS VEHICLE TO APPROACH/CONFRONT MARTIN. So if a fight did indeed ensue, Zimmerman was the instigator/aggressor.

As for the blood on the back of his head......scrapes that produced blood and were easily treated WITHOUT stitches that would have been recorded by a hospital.

 

[Foxfyre]

Photo Of Zimmerman's Bloodied Head Released

The ABC News video also reveals (voice over) that there WAS gun shot residue clearly visible on Trayvon's hooded sweatshirt. That's significant because it means that the gun was pretty damn close to the gun shot victim at the moment the gun was fired which is CONSISTENT with a self-defense claim. (That is, if the gun was fired from more than 1 1/2 to 3 feet away which would leave no GSR evidence on the sweatshirt, it would be more difficult to claim that he was in a struggle with the kid at that particular moment).

So far we STILL don't have sufficient evidence to properly conclude all that much. But we DO now, at least, know that two important factors are consistent with what Zimmerman said back on the day of the shooting. That is clearly good news for Zimmerman.

Since Martin is DEAD and cannot testify, why are we to automatically buy into Zimmerman's initial story? Remember, ZIMMERMAN PURSUED MARTIN. Essentially, you had Zimmerman FOLLOWING Martin around.....an unidentified, creepy guy following Martin in a car, at one time Martin approaches to see who's in the car, and then (according to Zimmerman) "runs away". Zimmerman PURSUES AFTER BEING TOLD THAT COPS ARE ON THE WAY AND IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO CONTINUE PURSUIT.

After that, we're lead to believe that Martin ATTACKED Zimmerman. But keep in mind that Zimmerman WOULD HAVE HAD TO GOTTEN OUT OF HIS VEHICLE TO APPROACH/CONFRONT MARTIN. So if a fight did indeed ensue, Zimmerman was the instigator/aggressor.

As for the blood on the back of his head......scrapes that produced blood and were easily treated WITHOUT stitches that would have been recorded by a hospital.

Nobody is automatically buying Zimmerman's intiial story. But for what purpose are some of you automatically discounting it? We weren't there. We don't know. So far, we have seen nothing in the initial police report or media that contradicts Zimmerman's version of the story. Everything else has been pure speculation.

It is wrong to defame Zimmerman without proof of his guilt. What he has admitted to is not worthy of more than mild criticism if even that. Certainly, if the story is as he has related it, he did nothing illegal and, depending on your point of view, nothing improper.

It is wrong to defame Martin until the authorities have shown to the very best of their ability what most likely happened that night.

 

[taichiliberal]

I'm sure somebody has already posted this but just for an update, this is significant because not only is Dershowitz a Democrat but when he is featured saying this on a channel like MSNBC, it is probably significant. And Dershowitz's opinion is also being expressed by others as I heard on the early morning new this morning:



Now if Dershowitz (and others) have a valid point here--I'm not saying they do but am purely the messenger in this case--but IF they do--couldn't that also be a strong factor in why the prosecutor waived a grand jury investigation? She KNEW that a grand jury would never recommend that Zimmerman be charged and she would miss out on all the media glory?

Again it may not be that way at all. But this fish is definitely beginning to smell a bit.

Dershowitz OPINION is just that....HIS OPINION!

The chief Det. at the scene saw enough holes in Zimmerman's story to file for arrest. To date, the more information comes out, the more Zimmerman's story stinks to high heaven.

2nd degree murder is being charged so that you have the option of convicting ON A LESSER CHARGE....as opposed to just going for the lesser charge and then having a total dismissal.

I seldom agree with any of Dershowitz's opinions, but it is an INFORMED opinion, based on his qualifications. What are your qualifications to dispute him with?

Funny how when there are INFORMED opinions that the neocon/teabagger/libertarian folk don't like, they will question and deride it with gusto. But as long as it fits into their agenda, then its sacrosanct.

I dispute Dershowitz on the FACTS surrounding the case. He may not like the affidavit IF the entire prosecutions case is based solely on it, but he cannot dispute that it does give grounds for an ARREST.

 

[Foxfyre]

Dershowitz OPINION is just that....HIS OPINION!

The chief Det. at the scene saw enough holes in Zimmerman's story to file for arrest. To date, the more information comes out, the more Zimmerman's story stinks to high heaven.

2nd degree murder is being charged so that you have the option of convicting ON A LESSER CHARGE....as opposed to just going for the lesser charge and then having a total dismissal.

I seldom agree with any of Dershowitz's opinions, but it is an INFORMED opinion, based on his qualifications. What are your qualifications to dispute him with?

Funny how when there are INFORMED opinions that the neocon/teabagger/libertarian folk don't like, they will question and deride it with gusto. But as long as it fits into their agenda, then its sacrosanct.

I dispute Dershowitz on the FACTS surrounding the case. He may not like the affidavit IF the entire prosecutions case is based solely on it, but he cannot dispute that it does give grounds for an ARREST.

An arrest perhaps. But to make the charge of 2nd degree murder stick? Dershowitz said that in his opinion, the 'evidence' related in the affidavit was way to thin to make a charge of 2nd Degree murder stick and, in his opinion, a competent judge would throw that out immediately. A trial to determine if there was involuntary manslaughter would be far more reasonable.

But then it couldn't be a great race baiting opportunity for media glory would it.