It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
It doesn't matter if they are life threatening or not. What matters if the person getting hit reasonably believes that it was life threatening. That's the law anyways.
And how do we prove that Zimmerman didn't really believe his life was in danger?
WHen you are the one getting beaten up ... things look different than they do for us here a year later talking about it ... ya' know??
This could have been a really good witness for the prosecution.
She started out gangbusters! But I think the defense has neutralized much (not all) of her testimony.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
I'm wondering why the defense didn't bring up all the problems that people have had with this ME? All the complaints by co-workers and police and funeral homes and the rest. She's been accused of doing a lot of unprofessional stuff over the past 10 years. I figured they'd bring it up at the start when she was rattling off her credentials.
Originally posted by Grimpachi
I get what you are saying however the state just introduced the interview with Hannity where Zimmerman stated that he though Martin was going for his gun so in fact that has been introduced.
The state has kind of screwed up by introducing so many statements by Zimmerman because now he probably does not need to take the stand. His statements are a matter of record now.
There is a bit of uproar about it here on the radio.
Originally posted by IvanAstikov
Am I reading your assault law right? A person has the first amendment right to call my mother a whore, criticise my father's manhood,claim I have sex with animals, all to my face and all in front of an audience, and if I respond "Go away or you are getting knocked out!" I'm the one who will be facing a charge sheet? Don't you have "fighting words" laws in some states?
Originally posted by Grimpachi
I am pretty sure the defense will be using the statements that were made immediately after the shooting and make the case to the jury that after time your memory changes I am sure we can all relate to that.
I do know the part about him going for his gun was also said in his initial interviews.
However if they do not need to put George on the stand it will be good for the defense.
Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by conspiracy nut
Why do you think there would be fingerprints on the gun after they had been in the rain and the CSI testified as to how easily they could be wiped off by simply touching it in the chain of custody?
Edit
The witness now is a fingerprint expert I bet that it will be brought up on the cross and answer everything.edit on 2-7-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)