Of course he did. The cat next door can tear him to shreds!
Posted on 07/12/2013 10:06:23 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Most of his bleeding was probably internal.
I figure it’s this way, if Z was intent on killing
him, he would have had his gun drawn from the beginning.
He only drew when he was on the ground and had been
assaulted, punched in the nose and his head slammed into the concrete.
Just my view.
You need to do your homework before making comments like that.
Wait until the trial is over and the jurors learn all the things about sweet little innocent Trayvon that we now know but the judge refused to let in. I will bet they will be incensed that they were not told about his criminal past, his drug use, his fighting history, and much more.
I’ve wondered that myself. A Chicago Bulls victory can result in more damage to a city than a loss.
Hey, treated them better than Alf...
If Zimmerman was intent on killing Trayvon, he wouldn’t have called the police from the get go. He was simply attempting to provide Trayvon’s location, until Trayvon decided that white people aren’t allowed to so much as look at a black person on public property. This case IS about race, because Trayvon’s racist views towards whites are in evidence from witness Rachel Jeantel who testified as to Trayvon’s racist state of mind seconds before he punched Zimmerman.
He’s going to prison. He shouldn’t, but he will. Thats reality, and Im a total cynic. I’ve lost all faith in our govt, media, and justice system.
I never heard anything about it and was just wondering why. All I asked is if someone was on top of me and I fired point blank into his chest wouldn’t he bleed on me?
No need to be hostile here. I believe it was self defense.
LMAO
So then Dexter can be told to stay home? :)
All I remember is Snoopy at the typewriter starting “It was a dark stormy night” with of course no “a shot rang out”. It was always that way. LOL
Martin may have bled out on the inside of his hoodie. Zimmerman may have scooted out from under him before blood dripped over him.
Don’t forget a trial for the judge also.
And I’m not meaning to be hostile, but I am just saying that it is very late to come into the discussion of the case with questions like that. There has been tons of medical tesimony about the type of wound and the cause of death, the powder burns, etc. and it would take too long to explain why.
Unfortunately all I get to see everyday is CNN. Once I leave the office, this trial is the last thing on my mind. All I get to see is the crawl.
If you go to another thread where there are graphic pictures, you can see there is “no” blood at all. Funny thing on that thread is several people are also inquiring about the blood.
I think it would be a mistrial which could be a good thing at this point.
“Did O’Mara ever rebut the lie the prosecutor told in his closing argument yesterday that Zimmerman told his friend to tell his wife “I killed him” when the friend actually testified Zimmerman said tell her “I shot him”?”
Yes he did. MOM made it clear GZ wanted to inform his wife that he was not shot.
“It was a HUGE mistake to have an all-female jury in this case. This is the LAST place you want emotion to play a role in a verdict. I fear these women will be more concerned about the OUTCOME of their verdict, than TRUTH based on evidence and the LAW.”
My thoughts exactly. I risk stereotyping ( and the subsequent risk of being bashed by Free Republic female members) women as a whole - but there is a strong current of emotion in how they think and act.
And that doesn’t play well for Zimmerman. I was just watching Fox and they said that the prosecution had a final rebuttal to the defense’s closing arguments. Fox said that the procsecution went heavy on emotion and light on facts.
Indeed. The judge will give Zimmerman 25 years for ‘manslaughter’, then the jury goes “WHAT? Ooooops, sorry.. We didn’t know the sentence for manslaughter would be so long.”Wait until the jury finds out what they weren’t told during the trial. If they convict Zimmerman, they’re going to have to live with the blood of an innocent man on their hands forever which really isn’t fair either.24 posted on 07/12/2013 10:29:55 AM PDT by RC one
Yes. I take it that MoM was forbidden to make any reference to that. Had he had any wiggle room there at all, surely he would have suggested that Zimmerman’s wife and mother and father deserved some consideration of what it would mean to them to lose George Zimmerman’s presence and support, and instead have the burden of having to make the time to get to a penitentiary and go through the humiliation of a search even worse than going into an airport. Not to mention worrying about what would happen to George when the only people around were a bunch of bullies.
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.