UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
surveillance of an unscather zimmerman isn't no evidence.Compared to the absolute lack of evidence you provide it appears airtight...
surveillance of an unscather zimmerman isn't no evidence.Compared to the absolute lack of evidence you provide it appears airtight...
Allegedly there are "medical records" to prove it.He was treated at the scene and Im sure SFD would testify to the extent of his injuries under oath.With head injuries and a broken nose? He would have had a neck brace, immobilized and sent to the hospital. He wasn't treated because he wasn't hurt.
A double negative? ::gasp:: You're drunk!surveillance of an unscather zimmerman isn't no evidence.
i did. why didn't you?Watch the actual video of the interview not an editorial on the interview.
*thereAllegedly their are "medical records" to prove it.He was treated at the scene and Im sure SFD would testify to the extent of his injuries under oath.
The point is it really doesn't matter. Him being treated does not prove conclusively that he was attacked by Trayvon. We have to go off of what we know: He followed him. He shot and killed him.Allegedly their are "medical records" to prove it.He was treated at the scene and Im sure SFD would testify to the extent of his injuries under oath.
He needs to put ' ' around "no evidence."A double negative? ::gasp:: You're drunk!
shhhh... let's not get too deep into this. We all know the real reason but we're politely stepping around it.The point is it really doesn't matter. Him being treated does not prove conclusively that he was attacked by Trayvon. We have to go off of what we know: He followed him. He shot and killed him.
That should be enough for people to agree that charges should have been filed. I'm seriously perplexed as to why there is any disagreement whatsoever..
*thereAllegedly there are "medical records" to prove it.He was treated at the scene and Im sure SFD would testify to the extent of his injuries under oath.
some people like to bring it into the thread in the opposite direction. kinda disgusting.shhhh... let's not get too deep into this. We all know the real reason but we're politely stepping around it.
if there were any injuries there would've been pictures taken.... a broken nose normally leads to extensive bleeding and bruising around the eyes.... something worth taking a picture of if you are claiming somebody attacked you and you suffered a broken nose... yet there's no picture to keep as evidence to support the story....Allegedly there are "medical records" to prove it.He was treated at the scene and Im sure SFD would testify to the extent of his injuries under oath.
I actually looked up unscather thinking it was an archaic derivative of some kind until I realized he had a typo there as well. Unscathed. Now I feel stupid.He needs to put ' ' around "no evidence."
That threw me for a loop also
And a gun shot to the head is normally fatal but not always.Do you know what coagulation means?if there were any injuries there would've been pictures taken.... a broken nose normally leads to extensive bleeding and bruising around the eyes.... something worth taking a picture of if you are claiming somebody attacked you and you suffered a broken nose... yet there's no picture to keep as evidence to support the story....
hmmm...
And a gun shot to the head is normally fatal but not always.Do you know what coagulation means?
The Canadian national anthem sounds like the result of a church choir singing the Wiggles theme song...[youtube]zwDvF0NtgdU[/youtube]
I am willing to bet that it wouldnt do significant damage to at least a few posters around here...And a gun shot to the head is normally fatal but not always.Do you know what coagulation means?
And Im sure they did take pictures.If they didn't I will ask why.But remember theres a murder investigation going on they are not giving out all the facts.