Wrong, in fact what you're saying now directly contradicts Vincent DiMiao's testimony in the trial. You're also making the case the Prosecution witness Dr Rao made, so don't try to lie again and say you aren't trying to round about say Zimmerman is guilty of murder hereI'm not "implying" anything, I'm telling you what the evidence shows. Zimmerman's injuries were not severe.
http://news.yahoo.com/expert-bolster...005644637.html
You are, in fact, implying that Zimmerman should not have used his gun to defend himself, because Martin hadn't severely injured him (According to you) and wasn't going to.DiMaio testified that Zimmerman, 29,had at least six injuries after his clash with Martin- including two on the back of his head that appeared to indicate impacts with concrete - one on each temple, one on his forehead and one on his nose.
Valerie Rao, a medical examiner who testified last week for the prosecution, said Zimmerman suffered "insignificant" injuries in the incident, as the state attempted to undermine Zimmerman's claim he feared for his life.
DiMaio said the injuries could be worse than they appeared. Lacerations to Zimmerman's head suggested the use of "severe force," he said, lending credence to his claim that Martin slammed Zimmerman's head into a concrete walkway after knocking him to the ground with a punch that broke his nose.
You're a dishonest hack
Wrong. If he wasn't in threat of serious bodily injury or death, his shooting wasn't justified. Hence why you're wrong, and why the court found him not guilty.Of course not. He was entirely justified in the way he acted.
Right so your position is that 40 year veteran pathologist and leading medical examiner Dr Vincent DiMiao is wrong and you're right.it's with people who assume the gun saved him from death/serious injury.
So time to pony up with that evidence that you have any background of mention whatsoever of relevance to this topic. We're waiting.