Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (725168)	7/8/2013 12:06:03 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578495

Hi tejek; Re: "appeared to be a broken nose". The job of the prosecution is to show that a crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt. The job of the defense is to provide doubt. But even if they were arguing on civil standards where "predominance of the evidence" is used, the only evidence on the question "did Zimmerman have a broken nose" is that a professional said that it "appeared" that he did. The prosecution has rested. There was no evidence by the prosecution to the effect that it "appeared" that Zimmerman's nose was not broken. And by the way, it wasn't Zimmerman's lawyer or Zimmerman who said he had a broken nose. It was a prosecution witness who testified that Zimmerman's nose "appeared" to be broken. Read what you wrote up above...........you are trying to make something orange look blue. Its possible that Zimmerman's nose was broken but there was never any factual confirmation. EOS. You all are so desperate to prove the white guy got mauled that you will say or do anything to prove it. Once again the bottom line is that an adult male murdered an innocent teenager. The prosecution may not prove that point jury beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury. And sadly, that won't be the first time the American court system has failed to mete out the appropriate justice.