Probably, but that’s not what you said before. I don’t engage with people who weasel, i.e. people who change their position without acknowledging it.
Are you abandoning your claim that as of now, the picture doesn’t count as even potential evidence?
Seems to come from an anonymous person who is not affiliated with a party. So by your reasoning it would seem to carry little or no weight.
Why do you seem to accept the claim as 100% true? Is it just your own bias or something else?
Brutal, Euph. Way harsh. Here for you, bro, if you need to talk this out.
It’s certainly not intended to be harsh. I simply choose not to engage with people who insist on misrepresenting my position.
Oh, so you don’t care that he’s gonna cry himself to sleep clutching his banky?
It is human nature to filter like this… some are just better at it than others.
I agree that the EMT report will carry much weight with the judge and /or jury. There is no reason why the public should be privy to it before they are.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Brutal, Euph. Way harsh. Here for you, bro, if you need to talk this out.
[/QUOTE]
You know, I think I’ll be Okay. I have a large amount of company.
No. Besides which, if he’s really that upset about being on my sh** list, he should have thought about it before insisting on misrepresenting my position.
For what it’s worth, I’ve kept my mind open to the possibility that Zimmerman really is a murderer. For example, if you look back in the thread, I stated pretty clearly that if it turns out he is uninjured, then he is a liar and should go to jail.
There is a difference between reasonable skepticism and unreasonable skepticism. I’m not 100% sure that the ABC photo is legitimate, but it’s reasonable under the circumstances to think it probably is legitimate.
In addition, the main reason I linked to the picture was in response to numerous members of “Team Trayvon” who essentially insisted that Zimmerman was uninjured.
There are some people in this thread, brazil84, who wish to hear absolutely nothing that may indicate that Zimmerman told the police the truth. They will accept, and trumpet loudly, counter-indications and you will hear nothing from them then of lack of evidentiary value, etc. Their minds are made up, they know what they know and they will hear nothing to the contrary.
I don’t know what happened that night. I do know that I intensely dislike seeing anyone condemned and vilified before they have had the chance to properly put their case.
Guess you’ll rush to the defence of Osama Bin Laden then, since he never got that chance.
Those bastards! Why is it always the ones with no names who cause all the trouble on this board?
If the circumstances were that Zimmerman’s attorneys presented it in court, risking their standing with the bar and all other consequences for presenting forged evidence, I would assume unless proven otherwise that, at the very least, the attorneys believed the photo was legitimate.
Those are not the circumstances. The circumstances are that some anonymous person, unaffiliated with either legal team, made an appreciable amount of money selling the photo to ABC News. The circumstances are also that, despite this being a major news story for about a month, and despite money also being available for providing said photo at any time over the past month, it took until now for the photo to surface. All of those things are problems. Until some actual, identifiable person is willing to stake their credibility on the claim that “this is a real, undoctored photo” I don’t even see the need to consider whether I believe it is or not.
I agree. If ABC news had published the same photo of Zimmerman’s head except that it showed no injuries at all, you can bet the people on Team Trayvon would accept it without any skepticism and screaming about it from the rooftops.
I’m not sure I would go that far. If there were strong, reasonably conclusive evidence that Zimmerman were a murderer, I would not object to the public condemning and vilifying him before he had a chance to present his case.
Ok, and does this principal apply to all evidence in the case? Or only to evidence which tends to exculpate Zimmerman?
For example, according to your link, there is at best an anonymous person claiming that the police attempted to influence her story. So by your reasoning, one should not even consider whether the story is true. And presumably there is no basis to conclude that the police tampered with evidence. And no need to even consider whether the police tampered with evidence.
Therefore, by your own logic, your assertion that the police tampered with evidence is baseless.
Agreed?
What about in this picture?
I personally see red discolorations which appear to be blood. What do you see?
I see what appears to be an injury in this picture
What do you see?
And do you agree that Mr. Zimmerman’s short hair actually makes it easier to see his injuries?
Do you see discoloration in this picture?
Because I do. Perhaps it’s just my right-wing bias at work, but I really do see discoloration in that picture. What do you see?
Are you still confident after seeing this picture?
Do you believe that this picture is somehow faked or tampered with?
