George Zimmerman Caught in a Lie: No Abrasions on Back of Head, No Broken Nose

I think i will allow the sanford police and prosecutor to make the determination of what the procedure should be rather than any of you libs calling for arrest of zimmerman for things that he has already been questioned on, investigated and found to be within the law.

Additionally, in spite of Mr. Zimmermans so called brushes with the law, what is one way in which to determine the cred of those involved....past behaviors. And realistically, it appears that Mr. Zimmerman has a little more cred than trayvon in this instance.

 

On a bald head, isn't that going to leave one hell of an abrasion when it gets beaten into the concrete? It's not like concrete is some nice smooth surface.

 

Another armchair expert.

 

The Sanford police have been proven to be both incompetent and racist in past cases. The prosecutor can only use information from the scene to make his decision; the department was so incompetent they didn't even test Zimmerman for drugs.

 

Even if they had, it would not have changed the evidence.

 

how do you know?

 

It's an example of their incompetence; intoxication IS a detail that would be considered "evidence."

 

How about the police report. Read what officer Timothy Smith wrote in it.

http://cnninsession.files.wordpress....olicreport.pdf

Notice no mention of a grass stain, only wet and grass. It was raining that night.

 

uh you said a drug test wouldn't change anything. I asked why? you replied with something about grass stains.

anyway, personally I don't think Zimmermans broken nose or abrasions on the back of his head make any difference. As soon as he defied the 911 operators request to not follow the kid, he went from a possible defense, to no defense. That's it.

 

Zimmerman had called the police constantly.. He called them if he saw black men in the neighborhood.. He called them if a garage door was left open.. He called them if a child ran across the street.

 

there it is

 

Are you saying that your right to self defense is suspended if you didn't have a drug test?

 

Trayvon's corpse was autopsied.. and I would bet he was checked for drugs.

 

Yet you don't know. Telling. That is what this has all been about, people like you second guessing what you don't know.

 

I'm saying one's testimony regarding the incidents in question would be suspect if one is proven to be intoxicated, which we'll never know since the Sanford police department is incompetent.

 

More opinion on your part, but lets say he did, does that mean he no longer has a right to defend himself when attacked?

 

It is a good bet.

"Take a blood sample, it can be used for DNA purposes, or to determine if the victim was on drugs, had been using alcohol, or whether there was poisoning."
http://www.wikihow.com/Perform-an-Autopsy-on-a--Human-Being

Whether or not they check for drugs when someone is smuched by a steamroller or shot by a murderous loon {using the word lots because it rhymes with coon}, I do not know.

If not, incompetent, because they guy was thought to be acting like on drugs on the 911 tape. So even if the cause of death is steamroller smushing, the guy might have found his way under the steamroller because of drugs and not operator error.

 

Not opinion; fact. How can you say the intoxication level of an individual on the stand ISN'T relevant to their testimony? How intellectually disingenuous do you have to be to ignore that component of the credibility of a testimony?

 

Like I asked before, if he was intoxicated, which was obviously not apparent, does he give up his right to protect himself?

 

An assault does not have to be physical. Even Florida law states an assault can entail "doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent."

When you take into account the history of racial relationships in this country and how that affects the mindset of a black youth of 17 years old who was walking alone minding his own business, legally, who then discovered that he was being watched and followed by a person in a motor vehicle, it's not just plausible, it is all but a certainty that such a situation created great apprehension and anxiety in the 17 year old. A person in that vehicle then stopped and exited his vehicle, and approached the 17 year old subject on foot. Apprehension and anxiety in the 17 year old's mind no doubt escalated quickly at that point.

It is entirely reasonable to believe that the driver now on foot unusual behavior bore all the necessary elements of a possibly harmful verbal or physical assault in the making. All the 17 year old likely knew at that point was flight or fight, that this unknown person appeared determined to make some form of unsolicited contact with him, and that he was becoming gripped by fear and apprehension. It is also therefore reasonable for the 17 year old to believe that driver now on foot was moving closer to engage in a confrontation with the 17 year old.

That is assault.

So the 17 year old defended himself against the assault and was shot and killed for it.

 

Just more opinion. You make a lot of assumptions.

 

Stop throwing out a red herring; if he was intoxicated, does that mean his claim of self-defense holds the same weight as if he made the claim sober?

 

no, its suspended when you seek out the other person, especially against the wishes of the 911 operator.

 

And of course you were there. If you listen to the 911 tape, he quits running after T when the operator says that. You don't know what happened after that other than the outcome do you? If you do, you better contact the police and let them know.

No, your right to self defense is not suspended if you have been intoxicated, which is not even pertinent because Zimmerman did not act intoxicated or it would have been in the report and there is no proof.