Posted on 05/16/2012 6:12:54 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Sounds like a reasonable attempt to assess the situation.
Were there any injuries to the trayvon teenagers gold teeth.
There,fixed it up for Mr O'Reilly.
.
BOR is Blaming the Victim, plain and simple.
If the Police don’t report to a call, no one would get hurt. If people didn’t watch their neighborhoods, there would never be any confrontation (yeah, okay).
BOR is an Idiot and he’s afraid to speak the Truth. He get this Medical Report stating Black Eyes, swelling, lacerations, a Broken Nose, and a head injury - along with Trayvon’s knuckles - and he says it looks like there could’ve been some kind of confrontation.
No, it’s clear one person was attacked and they defended themself.
Remember when Ted Baxter wasn’t going to cover this because it shouldn’t be tried on Televison? That was when Crump was going on MSNBC, CNN, and ABC. When they took the booking - suddenly O’Reilly says it’s too important not to cover. What a POS.
If there was a Video of the brutal attack, BOR and Crump would say well, we don’t know that Zimmerman didn’t say something to enrage Trayvon. They are refusing to see the Evidence clearly before them.
The New York Times buried in their story tonight that George Zimmerman passed a Lie Detection test administered by the Police. Oh, BOR couldn’t be bothered to read that far.
.
Yep, if there's one thing that Crump is, it's reasonable.
Sharp as a cue ball.
"Welcome to the party, pal."
Actually, he just needed George's arrest to file a tort. The tort standard of proof is a preponderance of evidence, a lower standard than reasonable doubt.
If Mr. O’Mara uses “Stand Your Ground” successfully a lawsuit is not possible. Read it and see.
Yep, if there’s one thing that Crump is, it’s reasonable. He’s reasonably sure his client is black, and the defendant
is white. So he is guilty as charged, let the sentencing begin. Lawsuits to follow! That is reasonable in his mind, not mine!
“Crump is the family lawyer, not a prosecutor. He doesnt need to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt when it becomes lawsuit time.”
He doesn’t even need to prove that: In a civil case the standard of proof is by a “Preponderence of the evidence,” not the “Beyond a reasonable doubt” required in a criminal case.
One of my joys in life is not tagging sarcasm, especially with newbies.
Somehow there is some huge piece of evidence missing that disputes everything else that’s come up. Until that evidence is revealed, we must not jump to conclusions. \sarc
We won’t know that until the trial, which I predict won’t even happen this year.
IMHO, no,....... we can't. It's not allowed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.