Shaving his head would not erase the cuts in his scalp. It would just prove that some of the bumps he had that night are 'normal' for him.
Superficial scratches
Shaving his head would not erase the cuts in his scalp. It would just prove that some of the bumps he had that night are 'normal' for him.
it doesn't matter if his nose was broken or not. legally all that matters is that he felt his life was in imminent danger.
One does not perceive the sound of "wet grass" with just one's ears (unless one is sensory disabled and has only auditory ability). It is practically impossible for someone to accurately recognize the sound of "wet grass" over the phone.
Broken noses are routinely diagnosed without an x-ray.
It may be surprising to know that x-rays are not particularly helpful in diagnosing and treating broken noses. Also, many fractures do not need to be repaired but just need time to heal.http://ent.about.com/od/enttreatments/a/Treating-Broken-Noses.htm
I disagree.
She knew it was raining.
Common sense tells you that when it rains, grass it wet. I mean, I don't need ANY sense other than the one called common to tell me that.
And if she didn't hear the phone fall onto concrete...what other option is there? I mean, she knew they were outside.
I guess I just disagree that one couldn't "know" what was happening just because all they can do is hear.
Then he didn't think his gun was any protection ? He couldn't have just pulled his gun and held TM in place until LE arrived ? No offense, but his Woe Is Me tale has no rhyme or reason. His " injuries" were extremely minimal. They didn't even bother to do X-Rays.
A patient consultation is extremely important.
Lol
When you go to the doctors for an injury or illness do you stand there, say nothing, and demand your doctor reach a diagnoses?
He still had to be examined. Are you saying I can go to a doctors office and say my arm is broken but I don't want an xray and they'll put that I have a broken arm in my medical records? They just take your word for it?
The holster appeared to be a clip type. Think of something that would slip over a belt. (Gee I wish I had the link to the pictures of it. They're in evidence.)Interesting. Wasn't the gun in a holster? Was it easily accessible ie., without something physically fastening it into place (snaps, Velcro)? It would be very difficult to remove with someone on top of you, wailing on your head. Could GZ have had the gun drawn while looking for TM? Just speculating...
I totally agree with the whole blaming the victim stuff. Here is my concern... if, according to RJ, TM was right by the back of dad's gf's townhouse how is it this confrontation took place 700ft away back towards where GZ's truck was?
What would an x-ray do with respect to a concussion? I certainly have not received X-rays when I was concussed.
I don't see a medical report, but an article I'm sure that was given by the defense. Hopefully we will see a true medical report and the physician on the witness stand unless of course GZ does not want to release his medical records which is his right not to do so.
Then what else in your statement would change the meaning of the definition? That's what we're talking about here - how the word is defined. Quite simply, the source you used defined it as "Pursue in order to catch or catch up with".I consider all of it to be relevant.
Which "other" definition does it fit?To say that it's not valid because it doesn't fit one definition is incorrect if it also happens to fit another.
I agree with you on this point...That is why words can have multiple definitions and uses.
You are correct. However, the wording that has been used is "chasing", or "chased". Clearly, these are not nouns, as they have a tense. You cannot conjugate nouns. You cannot simply apply the definition of the word as a noun to something that has been used as a verb. Therefore, the only definition that is applicable that you provided is that of "chase" in the predicate form.The definition is not an "either/and," it is an "either/or." Since you made mention of logic earlier, surely you should understand the difference.
I would hope that the letter written in cursive that the witness could not herself read was taken down in the presence of all necessary legal personnel. It's perfectly acceptable for someone who cannot write who is a witness to an alleged crime to dictate to a responsible party, but it's still not as 'good' as that person writing down their words themselves. I wonder if she cannot write at all. I don't think any law requires it to be written in cursive.
That must've been humiliating for her to have to admit she cannot read cursive writing in front of God and everybody. I hope people on the prosecution side realizes this girl needs some help in dealing with this whole situation and help her get it.
Just curious, but if TM didn't inflict the injuries how could he have gotten them? I just don't know what people were theorizing on that point. tia