HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Here We Go Again. Just L...

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:13 PM

Here We Go Again. Just Like With Zimmerman. Wilson Won' t Have to Testify.

The racist media is once again pretending that statements of white people who weren't present is more credible than direct eyewitness testimony of black witnesses. It's infuriating!

Now I saw a video of Wilson walking around the body and he didn't look injured at all. Today on the radio I hear that a "friend" said that Brown punched him so hard that his eye socket was broken.

I'm just about fed up. I guess the prosecutors will let him show a videotape at trial of what happened just like in the Zimmerman fiasco. It's utterly absurd. Infuriating!

74 replies, 5427 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 74 replies Author Time Post
Reply Here We Go Again. Just Like With Zimmerman. Wilson Won' t Have to Testify. (Original post)
Solomon Aug 2014 OP
WillowTree Aug 2014 #1
Boom Sound 416 Aug 2014 #6
Solomon Aug 2014 #55
exboyfil Aug 2014 #2
hatrack Aug 2014 #3
avebury Aug 2014 #4
earthside Aug 2014 #5
MohRokTah Aug 2014 #12
Bettie Aug 2014 #22
WinkyDink Aug 2014 #48
MikeW Aug 2014 #7
NaturalHigh Aug 2014 #8
DesMoinesDem Aug 2014 #13
NaturalHigh Aug 2014 #16
DesMoinesDem Aug 2014 #30
FSogol Aug 2014 #36
tritsofme Aug 2014 #9
yeoman6987 Aug 2014 #10
msongs Aug 2014 #11
Rex Aug 2014 #14
leftstreet Aug 2014 #15
X_Digger Aug 2014 #17
Logical Aug 2014 #19
Nay Aug 2014 #54
Logical Aug 2014 #67
JI7 Aug 2014 #18
cwydro Aug 2014 #20
Bjorn Against Aug 2014 #28
0rganism Aug 2014 #21
Quayblue Aug 2014 #25
Lurker Deluxe Aug 2014 #23
ncjustice80 Aug 2014 #24
Shrike47 Aug 2014 #26
ncjustice80 Aug 2014 #29
Louisiana1976 Aug 2014 #62
Lurker Deluxe Aug 2014 #27
WinkyDink Aug 2014 #51
SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2014 #60
IronGate Aug 2014 #70
NaturalHigh Aug 2014 #71
HooptieWagon Aug 2014 #31
kath Aug 2014 #47
Louisiana1976 Aug 2014 #63
XRubicon Aug 2014 #32
Glassunion Aug 2014 #40
XRubicon Aug 2014 #58
WinkyDink Aug 2014 #44
XRubicon Aug 2014 #56
ncjustice80 Aug 2014 #65
XRubicon Aug 2014 #66
SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2014 #72
XRubicon Aug 2014 #73
Glassunion Aug 2014 #74
Logical Aug 2014 #68
jwirr Aug 2014 #33
wandy Aug 2014 #34
JPnoodleman Aug 2014 #35
WinkyDink Aug 2014 #45
Vattel Aug 2014 #37
WinkyDink Aug 2014 #46
Vattel Aug 2014 #49
WinkyDink Aug 2014 #53
Glassunion Aug 2014 #38
MineralMan Aug 2014 #39
Recursion Aug 2014 #41
pintobean Aug 2014 #42
WinkyDink Aug 2014 #43
aint_no_life_nowhere Aug 2014 #50
WinkyDink Aug 2014 #52
GeorgeGist Aug 2014 #57
badtoworse Aug 2014 #59
hexola Aug 2014 #61
Jester Messiah Aug 2014 #64
xiamiam Aug 2014 #69

Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:17 PM

1. Of course he won't. No one has to testify against him/herself.

You knew that, didn't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #1)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:26 PM

6. Crickets

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillowTree (Reply #1)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:38 PM

55. ok wise asses. eveybody is missing the point im trying

to make here because I was rushing to get somewhere and didn't connect the dots. I'm a criminal defense attorney so I know damned well you can't compell him to testify. What I'm getting. at is he doesn't have the right to cheat by not testifying but having some damn video of him talking without being subject to cross examination. Hearsay is not admissible at trial but there was plenty of it on Zimmermans case just like I see them setting this up. It's wrong as hell.

Secondly, when a defendant has this much evidence going against him, even though he can't be compelled to testify, if he doesn't want to be convicted he better explain himself. That's what I meant. Didn't imagine people would take it the wrong way but I was rushing to get somewhere. If he wants to tell his side of the story, he should testify and be subject to cross examination - not cheat by getting in hearsay.

Lol. I was wondering why there were so many responses when I finally got a chance to get back on. I can see why people misunderstood the point I'm making. That was my fault.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:18 PM

2. You can't compel testimony

but I wonder if the rules of evidence should be changed to prevent statements caught on video from being presented to a jury without also compelling the speaker to also testify and face cross examination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:20 PM

3. If it's a criminal trial - that's how it works.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:23 PM

4. It may be better that he doesn't.

The trial will be based upon eye witness testimony and physical evidence. Let see what credible eye witnesses the defense can come up with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:25 PM

5. Will Wilson even be charged?

I'm starting to believe that this police officer will not even be charged.

And if he is charged at the county level, I will not expect a vigorous prosecution.

This is indeed looking more and more like the Treyvon Martin-Zimmerman scenario.

It seems terribly obvious to me that the delay in releasing public information about this case from local authorities is all about giving themselves and the 'defense' time to prepare and get their propaganda themes all lined up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earthside (Reply #5)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:31 PM

12. Doubtful. eom

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earthside (Reply #5)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:48 PM

22. He won't be charged

He'll be assigned to a desk for a few months, get a promotion, and then be out on the streets again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earthside (Reply #5)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:16 PM

48. He will be charged without a doubt. P.S. Z. was charged and tried.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:27 PM

7. GD what a stupid thread .. ever heard of the FIFTH AMENDMENT? privilege against self-incrimination?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:28 PM

8. He shouldn't have to testify.

It's sort of a constitutional right. I read about it somewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NaturalHigh (Reply #8)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:32 PM

13. I think it was in the first Harry Potter book.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DesMoinesDem (Reply #13)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:33 PM

16. I never read any of those, but I had a Civics textbook.

I think we learned this in the fourth grade, but it might have been the fifth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NaturalHigh (Reply #16)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 07:01 PM

30. I didn't know they taught Harry Potter in civics class.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NaturalHigh (Reply #16)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 07:52 PM

36. I'm guessing this country has a serious shortage of civics textbooks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:30 PM

9. So...are you proposing we suspend/repeal the 5th Amendment?

Or only for people we don't like? Strange times indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:30 PM

10. Lol. You forgot the sarc tag

 

You know he doesn't have to testify. Would you in a criminal trial?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:31 PM

11. the situation will be different at the civil trial nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:32 PM

14. Well nobody likes to be forced to testify, they even have a name for it

 

coercion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:32 PM

15. Do you mean to say he won't have to answer questions?

Or explain himself, or whatever?



It there's a trial it will be the responsibility of the Prosecutors to prove his guilt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:34 PM

17. This thread makes my head hurt. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #17)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:36 PM

19. LOL, me too. How do people come up with this stuff? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #19)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:23 PM

54. I have no idea. Every cop show, lawyer show, and courtroom show has said

many times that the accused cannot be forced to testify/incriminate himself. I can only think that the literacy rate is plummeting. Or no one reads anymore, even if they CAN read -- or they only read their phones or graphic novels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nay (Reply #54)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 10:06 PM

67. +100 nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:35 PM

18. you have people on this democratic site calling brown a thug

while saying of wilson's actions "we don't know".

so i'm not surprised

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #18)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:38 PM

20. Link to someone calling him a "thug" here?

And we know nothing yet...so no need to link to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:44 PM

21. not having to testify is a right, but the question is would he want to?

it's a defense decision.

much of the time, it's pretty standard for the defense to examine and allow cross-examination of the defendant, if the defense is confident in the defendant's innocence and capability to represent that innocence to the jury. When the defendant doesn't testify, that's a sign that the defense believes the defendant's testimony would do more harm than good to their case, which i take to mean either (a) the defense is so strong that they have no doubt they can win even without defendant testimony or (b) the defense has a problem that the defendant's presence on the stand would only exacerbate (e.g. can't tell a consistent story, looks and sounds exactly like Hannibal Lecter, etc.). now police are commonly regarded with a certain amount of respect right off the bat, and this is far from a clear-cut case in the defense's favor, so if Ofcr Wilson didn't testify i'd regard that as an indication of a serious weakness in his competence as a witness on his own behalf.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 0rganism (Reply #21)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:53 PM

25. thank you

I'm curious to see the strategy myself

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:48 PM

23. Perhaps a little torture

Let's make him talk.

Water board him. Maybe threaten some family. Cut off a finger or two.


We can get a confession out of him if we try hard enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:50 PM

24. it should be like the military

IIRC dont active duty military give up some constitutional rights while in base? Maybe federal law should make an exception for law enforcement as well. If you are a cop, the historic abuse of power means while employed as a law officer you automatically waive your Fourth and Fifth amendment rights?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ncjustice80 (Reply #24)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:54 PM

26. No, it shouldn't. Terrible idea. We should expand civil rights, not contract them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shrike47 (Reply #26)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 07:00 PM

29. Perhaps...

They are oppressors who actively engage in suppreasion of rights of others. I would normally be against such a thing, but we literally have no other alternative that I can see. Nothing has worked to change the police, they are just as corrupt and brutal now as they were 40 years ago.. The price of such power should be INTENSE, ONGOING pressure. A police officer should be more afraid of the consequences if drawing his gun then the conseuqences of not doing so- only then will we see real changes to their systemic abuse of he poor and the non white.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ncjustice80 (Reply #29)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:26 PM

62. +1 million

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ncjustice80 (Reply #24)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 06:56 PM

27. Why not some others too.

FFS!

Take his first as well.

Fuck it, let's lynch him!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ncjustice80 (Reply #24)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:18 PM

51. What? The? Hell?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ncjustice80 (Reply #24)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:45 PM

60. Not many rights are given up

Free speech, free association is about it, RKBA if they live on base.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ncjustice80 (Reply #24)

Wed Aug 20, 2014, 12:34 AM

70. Members of the Military don't lose their 4A or 5A rights during a court martial.

 

Your idea is a terrible one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ncjustice80 (Reply #24)

Wed Aug 20, 2014, 02:54 AM

71. That is an incredibly bad idea.

By the way, military personnel have the right not to testify too. Read the Constitution some time. It might help you not to make posts like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 07:02 PM

31. His written report should be admissible...

 

... provided he wrote one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #31)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:14 PM

47. Yeah, where the hell is the incident report? It's been TEN freaking days now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kath (Reply #47)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:28 PM

63. Excellent point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 07:08 PM

32. He should be compelled to testify as a public servant performing his duty

He can plead the fifth in front of a jury if he chooses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XRubicon (Reply #32)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:02 PM

40. No. No he should not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #40)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:43 PM

58. Yes, yes he should.

I believe he can be forced to testify before the grand jury, he can take the fifth if he wants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XRubicon (Reply #32)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:12 PM

44. Are you new to this country?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #44)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:40 PM

56. No, you?

Why can congress compel public servants to testify? They are free to take the fifth, he should be too.

He was not acting as a private citizen at the time of the incident. He was acting in the name of the local government.

Edit to add:
"The Court concludes that information regarding a police officer’s performance of official duties, including discipline imposed for misconduct involving citizens, is not a personal matter subject to constitutional protection."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/08/05/police-officers-have-no-constitutional-right-of-privacy-in-records-of-their-official-misconduct/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XRubicon (Reply #56)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:34 PM

65. Good info!!!

This means he should be compelled to testify, whether its against his (corrupt) self interest or not. This could be a good thing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ncjustice80 (Reply #65)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:44 PM

66. I don't think they can force him if he is a defendant on trial

But his superiors at the police station can force him to talk/file report and if he doesn't they can fire him.

I think he can be called into a grand jury investigation and compelled but he is free to plead the fifth. I'd like to see that, it would be telling.

I'm not a lawyer...



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XRubicon (Reply #56)

Wed Aug 20, 2014, 04:53 AM

72. Because

Congress is not a criminal trial jury.

And the when you bring up right to privacy v. right against self-incrimination, you're talking apples and oranges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SickOfTheOnePct (Reply #72)

Wed Aug 20, 2014, 05:24 AM

73. You sould get a copy of the constitution and head over to the NSA

Tell them your rights and how the laws work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XRubicon (Reply #56)

Wed Aug 20, 2014, 12:27 PM

74. Congressional testimony is not a criminal case.

Specifically, a person can be compelled to testify because there is no crime, therefore nothing to incriminate.

Pleading the 5th because of a danger of imaginary and unsubstantial character will not suffice. So, if a person who is testifying and asked a direct question cannot exercise their 5th A rights if that question does not call into question a crime.

If this officer is on trial for a crime, he has the right to not be compelled to take the stand. That is his right, as it is all of our rights. Stripping away of rights ALWAYS has unintended consequence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XRubicon (Reply #32)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 10:15 PM

68. Well, in a civil trial he would be. Read more about law stuff. n-t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 07:09 PM

33. Probably not but I think this is different. More witnesses on the prosecution side and some good

evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 07:35 PM

34. Other than the protests this is following the Zimmerman game plan.......

almost exactly.
You could almost predict the next event.

This weekend was frind(s) and reliable unnamed source(s).
Yesterday was drug day,
Today is injury day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 07:40 PM

35. Not believing black eye witnesses is infuriating...

In a discussion I've had, on facebook so idk take it with a grain of salt, the dominate assumption seems to be that the likely white friend of officer Wilson is more credible then any of the witnesses whom were physically there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JPnoodleman (Reply #35)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:13 PM

45. Is "infuriating" the Word of the Day?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 07:53 PM

37. I doubt that he will improve his chances of acquital by not testifying.

 

He has got to contradict the eye witnesses. Tiffany (can't remember her last name) is an extremely credible witness. Her testimony alone will be tough to overcome. It's corroboration by other witnesses puts Wilson very much on the defensive. I am not sure what eye witnesses he can dig up to support his story, but he will probably want to testify himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #37)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:14 PM

46. See: Simpson, O.J.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #46)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:16 PM

49. OJ had no eyewitness testimony against him.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vattel (Reply #49)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:22 PM

53. True.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:00 PM

38. You should read this. Bolded the important bit.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:02 PM

39. The Fifth Amendment protects us from having to

give evidence against ourselves. You want to discard that? Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:05 PM

41. That pesky 5th Amendment (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:08 PM

42. Where is this video of Wilson walking around the body?

 

Please link, I'd love to see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:11 PM

43. Defendants need not take the stand. US Jurisprudence 101.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:18 PM

50. The DA (the People) has the burden of proving that he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

He doesn't have to prove his innocence. He can choose not to say anything in his own defense and his case can consist only of challenging and cross-examining the witnesses including expert witness testimony and in raising reasonable doubt about the quality of evidence introduced against him. One odd aspect might involve his own defense attorney arguing his client's incompetence as a police officer. For example, if as the first officer on the scene he allowed the degradation of the crime scene (including walking on the blood spatter trail that would indicate where Michael Brown stood when he was shot and how fast he was running after first hit and in what direction), as well as whether his service revolver was accidentally wiped clean of Brown's fingerprints if, for example, he reholstered it or mishandled it if under an alleged daze that he was in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:20 PM

52. I guess only long-time DU'ers know their Rights. Heh.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:41 PM

57. Wilson has disappeared.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:44 PM

59. Don't they teach Civics anymore?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 08:46 PM

61. "These assholes always get away..."

 

Obligatory...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 09:29 PM

64. I'm astonished that Zimmerman is still walking around.

 

Someone really ought to have fixed that by now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Original post)

Tue Aug 19, 2014, 11:37 PM

69. the video of him walking around is going to be very very very important as this progresses.

How long did he stay near the body? Did anyone notice any injuries on him at that time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread