I am hooked on watching the Zimmerman trial. I have it streaming on
my computer, so it isn't interrupted by TV commercials and am also
monitoring the video on the left leaning MSNBC which occasionally
breaks for commercials and the viewer misses much of the testimony by
witnesses.

The State called a doctor who is the chief medical examiner for the
area that the Zimmerman event took place. She examined the photos of
his head injuries, along with the report of the PA at the medical
clinic who treated him. She testified that Zimmerman's injuries were
"very minor" (repeating it at every opportunity) and, in her
opinion, resulted from one blow to the nose and one, maybe two head
bangings on the concrete walkway. This conflicts with Zimmerman's
account of the incident.

She went out of her way to minimize the injuries and insisted they
were the result of minimal blows with not much force.

During this lengthy direct examination by the State, MSNBC didn't
interrupt a single time for a commercial.

Then came the cross examination by the defense. The defense attorney
started picking her testimony apart questioning why she was so sure
the injuries were from so few blows. She became hostile occasionally
and the attorney made good use of her frustration with him. She
finally had to admit that it was indeed "possible" that Zimmerman had
been hit not just once or twice, but multiple times. She did so with
a hostile attitude.

MSNBC had at least two lengthy station breaks during this cross
examination. The viewers missed a good portion of the cross
examination. Could that just be coincidence?

So now the court is in a 15 minute break. The MSNBC crew are all
excitedly discussing this "conflicting expert testimony" and about
how the doc said Zimmerman only got hit a couple of times.

You gotta be kidding me.

On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 16:21:15 UTC-3, Eisboch wrote:
I am hooked on watching the Zimmerman trial. I have it streaming on

my computer, so it isn't interrupted by TV commercials and am also

monitoring the video on the left leaning MSNBC which occasionally

breaks for commercials and the viewer misses much of the testimony by

witnesses.



The State called a doctor who is the chief medical examiner for the

area that the Zimmerman event took place. She examined the photos of

his head injuries, along with the report of the PA at the medical

clinic who treated him. She testified that Zimmerman's injuries were

"very minor" (repeating it at every opportunity) and, in her

opinion, resulted from one blow to the nose and one, maybe two head

bangings on the concrete walkway. This conflicts with Zimmerman's

account of the incident.



She went out of her way to minimize the injuries and insisted they

were the result of minimal blows with not much force.



During this lengthy direct examination by the State, MSNBC didn't

interrupt a single time for a commercial.



Then came the cross examination by the defense. The defense attorney

started picking her testimony apart questioning why she was so sure

the injuries were from so few blows. She became hostile occasionally

and the attorney made good use of her frustration with him. She

finally had to admit that it was indeed "possible" that Zimmerman had

been hit not just once or twice, but multiple times. She did so with

a hostile attitude.



MSNBC had at least two lengthy station breaks during this cross

examination. The viewers missed a good portion of the cross

examination. Could that just be coincidence?



So now the court is in a 15 minute break. The MSNBC crew are all

excitedly discussing this "conflicting expert testimony" and about

how the doc said Zimmerman only got hit a couple of times.



You gotta be kidding me.

Seems like the whole country is lined up on one side or the other.
It's starting to resemble this newsgroup...or at least it will when the verdict is handed in.

"True North" wrote in message
...

On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 16:21:15 UTC-3, Eisboch wrote:
I am hooked on watching the Zimmerman trial. I have it streaming
on

my computer, so it isn't interrupted by TV commercials and am also

monitoring the video on the left leaning MSNBC which occasionally

breaks for commercials and the viewer misses much of the testimony
by

witnesses.



The State called a doctor who is the chief medical examiner for the

area that the Zimmerman event took place. She examined the photos
of

his head injuries, along with the report of the PA at the medical

clinic who treated him. She testified that Zimmerman's injuries
were

"very minor" (repeating it at every opportunity) and, in her

opinion, resulted from one blow to the nose and one, maybe two head

bangings on the concrete walkway. This conflicts with Zimmerman's

account of the incident.



She went out of her way to minimize the injuries and insisted they

were the result of minimal blows with not much force.



During this lengthy direct examination by the State, MSNBC didn't

interrupt a single time for a commercial.



Then came the cross examination by the defense. The defense
attorney

started picking her testimony apart questioning why she was so sure

the injuries were from so few blows. She became hostile
occasionally

and the attorney made good use of her frustration with him. She

finally had to admit that it was indeed "possible" that Zimmerman
had

been hit not just once or twice, but multiple times. She did so
with

a hostile attitude.



MSNBC had at least two lengthy station breaks during this cross

examination. The viewers missed a good portion of the cross

examination. Could that just be coincidence?



So now the court is in a 15 minute break. The MSNBC crew are all

excitedly discussing this "conflicting expert testimony" and about

how the doc said Zimmerman only got hit a couple of times.



You gotta be kidding me.

Seems like the whole country is lined up on one side or the other.
It's starting to resemble this newsgroup...or at least it will when
the verdict is handed in.

------------------------------------------

Personally, I haven't "lined up" with either side yet. I am
fascinated with the trial. What I am noticing big time is the
presumption of guilt by some of the liberal media and their possible
attempts to keep information that may conflict with their attitudes
away from viewers. I confess, I haven't watched Fox News to see what
their slant is, if any. Maybe I'll do that for a while and see if
their coverage is equally biased the other way.

In article ,
says...

"True North" wrote in message
...

On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 16:21:15 UTC-3, Eisboch wrote:
I am hooked on watching the Zimmerman trial. I have it streaming
on

my computer, so it isn't interrupted by TV commercials and am also

monitoring the video on the left leaning MSNBC which occasionally

breaks for commercials and the viewer misses much of the testimony
by

witnesses.



The State called a doctor who is the chief medical examiner for the

area that the Zimmerman event took place. She examined the photos
of

his head injuries, along with the report of the PA at the medical

clinic who treated him. She testified that Zimmerman's injuries
were

"very minor" (repeating it at every opportunity) and, in her

opinion, resulted from one blow to the nose and one, maybe two head

bangings on the concrete walkway. This conflicts with Zimmerman's

account of the incident.



She went out of her way to minimize the injuries and insisted they

were the result of minimal blows with not much force.



During this lengthy direct examination by the State, MSNBC didn't

interrupt a single time for a commercial.



Then came the cross examination by the defense. The defense
attorney

started picking her testimony apart questioning why she was so sure

the injuries were from so few blows. She became hostile
occasionally

and the attorney made good use of her frustration with him. She

finally had to admit that it was indeed "possible" that Zimmerman
had

been hit not just once or twice, but multiple times. She did so
with

a hostile attitude.



MSNBC had at least two lengthy station breaks during this cross

examination. The viewers missed a good portion of the cross

examination. Could that just be coincidence?



So now the court is in a 15 minute break. The MSNBC crew are all

excitedly discussing this "conflicting expert testimony" and about

how the doc said Zimmerman only got hit a couple of times.



You gotta be kidding me.

Seems like the whole country is lined up on one side or the other.
It's starting to resemble this newsgroup...or at least it will when
the verdict is handed in.

------------------------------------------

Personally, I haven't "lined up" with either side yet. I am
fascinated with the trial. What I am noticing big time is the
presumption of guilt by some of the liberal media and their possible
attempts to keep information that may conflict with their attitudes
away from viewers. I confess, I haven't watched Fox News to see what
their slant is, if any. Maybe I'll do that for a while and see if
their coverage is equally biased the other way.

There's also a lot of presumption of innocent by the conservatives, too.

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...



Personally, I haven't "lined up" with either side yet. I am
fascinated with the trial. What I am noticing big time is the
presumption of guilt by some of the liberal media and their possible
attempts to keep information that may conflict with their attitudes
away from viewers. I confess, I haven't watched Fox News to see
what
their slant is, if any. Maybe I'll do that for a while and see if
their coverage is equally biased the other way.

There's also a lot of presumption of innocent by the conservatives,
too.

-----------------------------------------------------

You are *supposed* to be presumed innocent until found guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt.

On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 3:03:57 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
"iBoaterer" wrote in message

...



In article ,

says...







Personally, I haven't "lined up" with either side yet. I am

fascinated with the trial. What I am noticing big time is the

presumption of guilt by some of the liberal media and their possible

attempts to keep information that may conflict with their attitudes

away from viewers. I confess, I haven't watched Fox News to see

what

their slant is, if any. Maybe I'll do that for a while and see if

their coverage is equally biased the other way.



There's also a lot of presumption of innocent by the conservatives,

too.



-----------------------------------------------------



You are *supposed* to be presumed innocent until found guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt.

But, Harry. you're pronounced Zimmerman guilty from the world 'go'. No need for a trial.

On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 2:46:46 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:


Personally, I haven't "lined up" with either side yet.


"But, Harry. you're pronounced Zimmerman guilty from the world 'go'. No need for a trial. "

On 7/3/13 6:12 AM, Tim wrote:
On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 2:46:46 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:


Personally, I haven't "lined up" with either side yet.


"But, Harry. you're pronounced Zimmerman guilty from the world 'go'. No need for a trial."


I think you are quoting someone else there, Tim. I think anyone who has
a record of violence and who is outside his or her home and who shoots
an unarmed stranger is likely guilty of a serious felony. Zimmerman has
a record of violence, he was not in his home, he was advised to leave
Mr. Martin to the police, he stalked Martin instead, and when the
situation he created got away from him, he shot and killed Martin.

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 7/3/13 6:12 AM, Tim wrote:
On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 2:46:46 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:


Personally, I haven't "lined up" with either side yet.


"But, Harry. you're pronounced Zimmerman guilty from the world 'go'.
No need for a trial."


I think you are quoting someone else there, Tim. I think anyone who
has
a record of violence and who is outside his or her home and who shoots
an unarmed stranger is likely guilty of a serious felony. Zimmerman
has
a record of violence, he was not in his home, he was advised to leave
Mr. Martin to the police, he stalked Martin instead, and when the
situation he created got away from him, he shot and killed Martin.

--------------------------------------------

May be the case. But to be accurate, the "record of violence" you
reference has been determined to be rather minor in nature as it
relates to his prior arrest. Basically, he was drinking along with a
friend and acted like an idiot, same as most drunks do. The initial
charge of "resisting an officer with violence" was reduced to
"resisting an officer without violence" and then dismissed when he
agreed to enter an alcohol abuse program.

As to the domestic violence accusation ... there was never a charge.
An ex-girlfriend filed for a restraining order. Zimmerman filed a
counter restraining order. Both were granted. That was the end of
that. A "domestic violence" charge was never pursued by either.

If Zimmerman's past is important then so is Martin's. There are
several examples of alleged actions and behavior that diminish the
portrayal of him being a upright, law abiding model citizen. The
only one that has been officially acknowledged by records and his
family is the school suspensions. In fact, he was under a suspension
when this whole affair occurred.

On 7/3/2013 6:21 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 7/3/13 6:12 AM, Tim wrote:
On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 2:46:46 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:


Personally, I haven't "lined up" with either side yet.


"But, Harry. you're pronounced Zimmerman guilty from the world 'go'.
No need for a trial."


I think you are quoting someone else there, Tim. I think anyone who has
a record of violence and who is outside his or her home and who shoots
an unarmed stranger is likely guilty of a serious felony. Zimmerman has
a record of violence, he was not in his home, he was advised to leave
Mr. Martin to the police, he stalked Martin instead, and when the
situation he created got away from him, he shot and killed Martin.

So what if Trey grabbed Zimm's gun and killed Zimm like he promised to
do? How would you call that scenario?