The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

All she said was "it could" which is not proof that it did so

Valerie Rao said she reviewed Zimmerman's medical records and the pictures of his injuries taken at a police station after the confrontation in a gated community in Sanford, Florida.

"They were not life-threatening. They were very insignificant," she told the jury.

Zimmerman, 29, claimed he shot Trayvon in self-defence after the 17-year-old punched him in the face and repeatedly slammed his head into the pavement

By contrast, it is well within the realm of reasonable doubt to hypothesize that Zimmerman suffered a concussion that stunned him for a few minutes, but did not require further medical attention when Folgate examined him the next afternoon.

Seeing the last day highlights and "talking head analyses", I don't see why the defense cant rest. Im anxious to hear the summations before it goes to the jury (Including final instructions from the judge)

Talking heads seem to feel that the jury will be surprised at these automatic Mandatory Maximum Sentences that each verdict would draw . 30 years for manslaughter makes the possibility for acquittal a bit higher,

This guy testifying now says if you don't win a physical fight in the first thirty seconds you have to change tactics. I guess if two boys in school yard get into a fight, the looser is justified in pulling out a gun and ending it before he gets anymore bruised up...

Quote:

1) The schoolyard story was a hypothetical. Don't attack a hypothetical because its facts aren't real. Of course they aren't! That's what makes it a hypothetical.

I misunderstood, I thought you were talking of Zimmerman not continuing on with the school yard hypothetical situation.

I do not believe that the defense theory of Zimmerman's head being pounded on concrete and therefore he was in fear of his is life consistent with the facts. All he had was two minor abrasions on his head and a bloody nose according to the states medical examiner (the lady not the guy who did the autopsy) which I found very credible. You may disagree and so might the jury in which they will acquit.

On a bright note (at least from my perspective) I have been out a lot, but it seems like the state attorney, Guy somebody, is doing fairly well today.

Your assertion is un-justified;
e.g., at trial with a presumption of guilt,
defendant cud be held to prove himself innocent.

I said MAXIMUM , you are quoting Mandatory Minimums

New Years eve 1992 I was in San Diego and walking along a street with my brother and a friend of his. We were walking by some dudes and we happen to say "Happy New Years". The reply was "what did you say about my mom". At this point I was approached by one of the guys and I was hit once in the face. I instantly blacked out and had to be carried home. I don't recall anything after being hit and that includes the trip to the emergency room. To this day I still don't remember being hit or the walk home or the trip to the ER. I'm lucky my brother and his friend were there, if they weren't who knows how my night would have turned out.

It doesn't take a lot for some people and in truth some people are tougher then others. Due to my glass jaw, I don't look for trouble but if it found me, I would be likely to shoot first and ask questions later due to my previous experience.

I don't look for trouble but if it found me, I would be likely to shoot first and ask questions later due to my previous experience.

revelette wrote:

All she said was "it could" which is not proof that it did so

No it isn't. So what? For the umptieth time: The defense does not have to prove anything. The prosecution has to disprove every reasonable hypothesis except Zimmerman's guilt. So when Folgate says "it could", that's good enough for the defense, but bad for the prosecution.

DrewDad wrote:

And his body could have been taken over by aliens and they made him pull the trigger....

Now this is where we enter the realm of unreasonable doubt.

By contrast, it is well within the realm of reasonable doubt to hypothesize that Zimmerman suffered a concussion that stunned him for a few minutes, but did not require further medical attention when Folgate examined him the next afternoon.

By contrast, it is well within the realm of reasonable doubt to hypothesize that Zimmerman suffered a concussion that stunned him for a few minutes, but did not require further medical attention when Folgate examined him the next afternoon.

Zimmerman shot Martin once in the chest “at very close range,” police told the Sentinel. When they arrived, they found Zimmerman bleeding from the nose and head. He was treated at the scene but refused to go to the hospital.

I voted for Barry Goldwater and I represent his philosophy
of the Orthodox Americanism of the Founders of the Republic.
As such, it comes naturally, inexorably to me to support
the presumption of innocence. If I were so fortunate
as to successfully convince u to adopt my point of vu,
wud u then abandon the presumption of innocence??

No, I wouldn't. When it comes to people's due-process rights,
libertarians and liberals are barely distinguishable.
I see the Zimmerman case the same way today as I would have
seen it 10 years ago, when I considered myself a libertarian.