Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Tell me again how prosecutors aren't trying to railroad George Zimmerman.

From George Zimmerman's attorneys: "This is a photo of George Zimmerman taken by a police officer on the night of February 26, 2012. A black and white photocopy of this image was provided by the State in the first Discovery. This high-resolution digital file was finally provided to the defense on October 29, 2012. This image was disclosed in the State's 9th Supplemental Discovery."
Comparison of photos from BuzzFeed.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

All the libtards are saying this photo is faked. Morons.

Anonymous said...

There's no doubt that the prosecutors are trying to start a race war.

The photo supports the part of Zimmerman's story about what happened in the fight.

But there is still the issue of whether Martin was himself acting in self-defense by engaging someone who was exhibiting stalking behavior.

People have a right to walk around in any fashion they like, wearing hoodies or whatever. Was Martin violating, or about to violate, someone's property rights?

That's the next question.

Anonymous said...

Run George, run!

But George didn't run.

You see George believes in the America where innocent men, of any color or ethnicity, aren't targeted by Marxists in order to use him to achieve their goals of destroying that America.

George believes in fairness and justice and in the individual human right of self-defence and the defence of others a a duty of citizenship. His Marxist enemies do not and seek to destroy all of that, and then seek to place themselves in pre-eminent positions of power, answering to no one, especially the average citizen. Kabuki dances and mirrors are all that is required for them, preformed by their media to exacting standards.

Anonymous said...

Whoever withheld this original photo should be strung up. Could it have been the lady DA that's been using this case to advance her career?

Short ropes and tall trees.

Who investigates the investigators?
Fox guarding the hen house.
Could it be blatant reverse discrimination?