Skip to comments.OíReilly And Trayvon Attorney Dissect Legal Impact Of Zimmermanís Medical Records Showing Injuries
Posted on 05/16/2012 6:12:54 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
On his show Wednesday night, Bill OReilly returned to the Trayvon Martin case in light of ABC News report that medical records support George Zimmermans account of scalp injuries and a broken nose. OReilly emphasized as he has in the past that the case should not be tried on television. He brought in Martin familys attorney, Benjamin Crump, to discuss.
Obviously, OReilly said, this new evidence points to a confrontation between Martin and Zimmerman. Furthermore, all the pundits who were quick to place guilt on Zimmerman, he said, are now being challenged by the medical report.
Crump agreed the case shouldnt be tried on TV, but said the medical records should be vetted properly. He went on to question why Zimmerman, if hed sustained serious injuries, would have declined medical attention following the incident. OReilly agreed that the prosecutor needs to cross-examine going on to mention Martins autopsy, which said Martins knuckles were scraped. (NBC News report notes it was, a small abrasion, no more than a quarter-inch in size on his left ring finger below the knuckle.)
Without eyewitnesses, OReilly said, its very difficult to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, second-degree murder based on racial profiling. Crump urged the need to put everything in the full context. There are different versions of his account, Crump said. They hopefully are going to come out. He went on to say that if Zimmerman had stood down, thered have been to need for him to stand his ground referring to Floridas Stand Your Ground law, which allows acting in self-defense if theres a reasonable belief of threat.
The two agreed on one thing: we shouldnt be jumping to any conclusions, especially not without taking a look at all the evidence in context.
Take a look at the segment, via Fox News:
(VIDEO AT LINK)
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.