Z's First Court Appearance: He Lied Under Oath

That pic actually helps prove his head was not bashed on concrete. Anything else you want to post to disprove your own claim????

 

How so? Are you arguing that wet ground can cause multiple lacerations to the back of a mans head?

I think you are once again proving that you will say anything.

 

He started following T before T put his hoodie on.

If T's face was so obscured how did Z nail his age????? Isn't 17 "late teens???"

 

I never said wet ground can cause multiple lacerations. Those two scratches on his head are not consistent with a nearly bald head being bashed on concrete. It stopped bleeding on its own even before anyone touched him.

 

When you show us what three law enforcement agencies believed Z's story.

 

We dont know when he pulled his hoody up.

Trayvon is still lanky and the prejudice that most of the break ins had been teenagers.

 

His head was either being bashed on the wet ground or the concrete pick one!

You don't know what the hell you are talking about. I slammed my head hard against concrete in a fall. It crushed my skull but didn't lacerate my scalp. There is no consistent. Kindly end your ridiculous (*)(*)(*)(*)ing guessing. Its becoming a joke.

 

The only way a head can get scratched is by being bashed on a concrete sidewalk???? Hmm...

wow. So when you simply fall you get a crushed skull but when Z gets knocked to the ground with a single punch then has his head repeatedly bashed on the concrete all he has are two scratches that didn't even need a band aid. Wow. Thanks again for helping proving Z did not have his head bashed on concrete!

 

We know he didn't put his hoodie on until after Z started following him. That was only revealed over a month ago but Z's supporters generally seem to be about two months behind so maybe in May you will learn how we know that. He also didn't have his hoodie on in the 7-11 as proven by the video footage.

 

Yep, now the forum lawyers are doctors too. How convenient. Sky, if you are so smart and just KNOW all of this stuff like it is second nature, what the hell are you doing spending your day on PF?

 

Inflating my ego by debating people like you.

 

You are the one who asked when did he go to the hospital. You know he went to a hospital how?

 

The preponderance of the evidence is what I stated. So as far as Zimmerman was concerned he was guilty of threatening his life or with serious bodily harm.

 

Yes he did, he pulled up his hoody and then walked towards him while sticking his hand down his waist. Go read the 911 transcript.

Wrong again.

“He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man,” Martin’s friend said told ABC News.

And he lost the man, so he could have gone on to his home and nothing would have happened.

 

They are documented as you well know and a doctor could put a time frame on them.

His lawyer had no obligation to produce it at the hearing nor does he even have to turn it over to the prosecution although he said he would.

Link or did you just make that one up too?

 

No you don't and please fill in the blanks, why was Martin shot and killed?

 

Did you miss the "if" in my statement?

 

This from somebody trying to lead a lynch mob. Priceless.

 

They don't, they have nothing to refute Zimmerman's statement, no evidence to tell who hit whom first and no he did not say Zimmerman was a liar. YOU are the one twisting in the wind here.

 

He never actually went to Z's vehicle and you just proved my point that T put his hoodie up AFTER HE NOTICED Z WAS WATCHING HIM.

Good grief.....

 

He never actually went to Z's vehicle and you just proved my point that T put his hoodie up AFTER HE NOTICED Z WAS WATCHING HIM.

Good grief.....

 

lol...okay....your posts are so full of stupid it is not worth the time....

 

Actually once again you post something which has nothing to do with what you preciously stated and what was being commented on.


"CITE THE LAW THAT STATES YOU CANNOT CARRY A FIREARM ON PATROL IF YOU ARE LICENSED.

You can't because IT DOESN'T EXIST."

 

You most certainly did:

I see that you are resorting to changing your initial position once you failed to prove that you weren't fabricating a strawman thread. Or maybe you're just flat out lying. I'll let others decide.

Of course it can. A 108 year old calling a 97 year old "a little bit younger" is not dishonest at all. If the individuals in question were 80 years older, you wouldn't be making such an outrageous claim. Nor would you be resorting to dishonestly changing your intial position once you failed to prove it to not be a fabrication.

I disagree with your opinion that Z's statement was dishonest.

Z was estimating M's age but he could not know for sure. Unless you can prove that Z knew M's age somehow.

More fabrications. Z made no false claim.