trayvan martin

"if zimmerman was getting beat so bad, there would be evidence of it. as it is, there is no evidence that zimmerman was assaulted at all. none."

Read the police report. Read the account of the eye witness. UB, you are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to you own facts. Zimmer walks under 776.041 2a.

Originally Posted by desert dude

According to the police report...

yes, the police report. which we know is of course the acme and pinnacle of all honesty.

keep citing the report from a corrupt and crooked police force with a history of racial injustice. genius.

Originally Posted by desert dude

...Zimmer was bleeding from nose and head and the back of his shirt was wet.

there is zero evidence of this. got a photo of that bloody nose? got a photo of that wet shirt? no? then it never happened.

Originally Posted by desert dude

The eye witness account was that Trayvon was on top of Zimmer beating him...

an anonymous "witness" who was contradicted by other accounts which the police felt the need to "correct".

Originally Posted by desert dude

consistent with the police report.

suddenly, people on a pot website are defending what's on police reports. what a world.

Originally Posted by desert dude

I don't know if Zimmer tried to escape but if he did he was not successful because he wound up on the ground under Trayvon.

unfounded.

Originally Posted by desert dude

The law say nothing about a bloody nose, it only says, "...the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm..."

that is not the only thing the law says, genius. that has to be paired with and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant

zimmerman had 360 degrees of escape options available to him. the important part is the AND, it means BOTH must be true. neither was true.

Originally Posted by desert dude

Yeah, let's see you argue that one in court in front of a jury. Pure speculation on your part and it would not be admissible.

what? speculation?

it is fact that they did not collect any evidence of any "wet shirt" or "bloody nose".

until you can show me evidence of said things, YOU are the one speculating.

Originally Posted by UncleBuck

you accuse others of jumping to conclusions, yet talk like it's a certainty that this was the case.

if zimmerman was getting beat so bad, there would be evidence of it. as it is, there is no evidence that zimmerman was assaulted at all. none.

not to mention, he has 100 pounds on the kid and had 360 degrees of open space around him to run away, if you believe this unfounded and ludicrous tale that this kid turned into the incredible hulk.

Ya no evidence besides the witness "john" saying he seen zimmermen getting beat.
The injuries on his head and nose would backup "johns" story.
The injuries of which were documented by police and also Fire department.

Originally Posted by desert dude

"Funny how Zimmerman was on his back when he shot Trayvon in the chest. Zimmerman was supposed to be directly underneath him. Why wasn't he covered in Trayvon's blood? The chest? Where the heart is? No blood? "

The problem with that line of thinking is the eye witness account of Trayvon on top of Zimmer and beating him. That eye witness account corroborates Zimmer's claim that he was being beaten.

eyewitness accounts are unreliable in a court of law. the account means jack shit, especially since the cops were "correcting" other accounts.

Originally Posted by UncleBuck

yes, the police report. which we know is of course the acme and pinnacle of all honesty.

keep citing the report from a corrupt and crooked police force with a history of racial injustice. genius.



there is zero evidence of this. got a photo of that bloody nose? got a photo of that wet shirt? no? then it never happened.



an anonymous "witness" who was contradicted by other accounts which the police felt the need to "correct".



suddenly, people on a pot website are defending what's on police reports. what a world.



unfounded.



that is not the only thing the law says, genius. that has to be paired with and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant

zimmerman had 360 degrees of escape options available to him. the important part is the AND, it means BOTH must be true. neither was true.

Poor UB. On the losing side of yet another argument, shouting unfounded assertions that are contradicted by the police report and an eye witness. Zimmer walks. What he did was remarkably dumb, but legal under the law.

Originally Posted by desert dude

"if zimmerman was getting beat so bad, there would be evidence of it. as it is, there is no evidence that zimmerman was assaulted at all. none."

Read the police report. Read the account of the eye witness. UB, you are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to you own facts. Zimmer walks under 776.041 2a.

lol, now stoners are defending police reports. the police report doesn't mean shit when they coached other people into making the statements they wanted.

eyewitness accounts are all but meaningless in a court of law.

no pictures or any evidence whatsoever of any injuries, no assault ever happened. period.

Originally Posted by UncleBuck

eyewitness accounts are unreliable in a court of law. the account means jack shit, especially since the cops were "correcting" other accounts.

I agree that eye witness are unreliable, even notoriously so, but they are admissible as evidence. In this case the eye witness account is corroborated by the observations of the responding policeman and documented in the policeman's written report. Zimmer walks.

GAME SET MATCH... unless some other actual evidence emerges.