|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On July 06 2013 02:55 zlefin wrote:
xdaunt, shut up, you're an idiot. I'd read the jury instructions quite carefully already, you just don't get what i'm saying at all. So you should stop talking until you learn something about law; lest you look even more stupid. I see enough stupidity watching the prosecution witnesses
Say one of the only lawyers in the thread doesn't know anything about the law....
Nice!
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but he's pretty much just eliminated any credibility of anything coming from his office ?
|
On July 06 2013 03:00 Kaitlin wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but he's pretty much just eliminated any credibility of anything coming from his office ?
I don't know about it being a total elimination, but it certainly doesn't look that great.
|
On July 06 2013 03:00 Kaitlin wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but he's pretty much just eliminated any credibility of anything coming from his office ?
I know right. "I don't remember anything and I've never had any experience doing what I'm here to testify about".
prosecution just keeps on digging and digging.
|
On July 06 2013 02:55 zlefin wrote:
To the people who responded to me on page 269: At age 17, he is a child for child abuse laws, I read that part of the florida statute. And I can easily argue that the culpable act was one of recklessness that occurred at leaving the car. It's not hard to do that at all; and it'd be better than this pathetic case by the prosecution. When you chase people, them getting hurt is a foreseeable outcome. Kids are dumb, they're likely to flee or fight. A 1v1 fight has higher risks than a 3v1 fight. Running on a dark rainy night, could easily result in serious injury. I can make a point of 5-6 things, that taken together, constitute negligence or somesuch; wherein doing any one of them, could have prevented this from resulting in a death.
xdaunt, shut up, you're an idiot. I'd read the jury instructions quite carefully already, you just don't get what i'm saying at all. So you should stop talking until you learn something about law; lest you look even more stupid. I see enough stupidity watching the prosecution witnesses
For reference, you might want to know that I am an attorney and kinda know what I am talking about. I'm trying to help you become informed about the law, but you don't seem to be very interested.
|
On July 06 2013 03:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 02:55 zlefin wrote:
To the people who responded to me on page 269: At age 17, he is a child for child abuse laws, I read that part of the florida statute. And I can easily argue that the culpable act was one of recklessness that occurred at leaving the car. It's not hard to do that at all; and it'd be better than this pathetic case by the prosecution. When you chase people, them getting hurt is a foreseeable outcome. Kids are dumb, they're likely to flee or fight. A 1v1 fight has higher risks than a 3v1 fight. Running on a dark rainy night, could easily result in serious injury. I can make a point of 5-6 things, that taken together, constitute negligence or somesuch; wherein doing any one of them, could have prevented this from resulting in a death.
xdaunt, shut up, you're an idiot. I'd read the jury instructions quite carefully already, you just don't get what i'm saying at all. So you should stop talking until you learn something about law; lest you look even more stupid. I see enough stupidity watching the prosecution witnesses For reference, you might want to know that I am an attorney and kinda know what I am talking about. I'm trying to help you become informed about the law, but you don't seem to be very interested.
Just curious what type of lawyer you are? Meaning what field of law did you study/currently practice?
|
On July 06 2013 03:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 03:04 xDaunt wrote:On July 06 2013 02:55 zlefin wrote:
To the people who responded to me on page 269: At age 17, he is a child for child abuse laws, I read that part of the florida statute. And I can easily argue that the culpable act was one of recklessness that occurred at leaving the car. It's not hard to do that at all; and it'd be better than this pathetic case by the prosecution. When you chase people, them getting hurt is a foreseeable outcome. Kids are dumb, they're likely to flee or fight. A 1v1 fight has higher risks than a 3v1 fight. Running on a dark rainy night, could easily result in serious injury. I can make a point of 5-6 things, that taken together, constitute negligence or somesuch; wherein doing any one of them, could have prevented this from resulting in a death.
xdaunt, shut up, you're an idiot. I'd read the jury instructions quite carefully already, you just don't get what i'm saying at all. So you should stop talking until you learn something about law; lest you look even more stupid. I see enough stupidity watching the prosecution witnesses For reference, you might want to know that I am an attorney and kinda know what I am talking about. I'm trying to help you become informed about the law, but you don't seem to be very interested. Just curious what type of lawyer you are? Meaning what field of law did you study/currently practice?
Civil litigation, mostly commercial disputes and personal injury cases.
|
I've said this before, but I think it's worth repeating now: the prosecution isn't doing a "bad job." The problem is that the prosecution doesn't have much to work with.
|
You know, it's cases like these that suggest maybe we should called CSI (and it's clones) "science fiction" rather than "procedural drama"? The "procedure" part is slightly in question at the moment.
|
On July 06 2013 03:10 Taf the Ghost wrote:
You know, it's cases like these that suggest maybe we should called CSI (and it's clones) "science fiction" rather than "procedural drama"? The "procedure" part is slightly in question at the moment.
Science fiction is all they've ever been in the eyes of anyone even remotely familiar with evidence gathering 
|
I'm thinking evidence of a lack of blood on the hands is fucked.
edit: he ignores anything except injury or disease...
|
Somebody check the Las Vegas line on whether this witness is going to testify that George Zimmerman is not guilty...
|
Witness really fighting with the defense. Interesting angle. Don't take photos so noone can second guess.
|
On July 06 2013 03:15 Kaitlin wrote:
Somebody check the Las Vegas line on whether this witness is going to testify that George Zimmerman is not guilty...
Best Joke: Someone needs to check Dr. Bao's Toxicology report.
|
On July 06 2013 03:11 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 03:10 Taf the Ghost wrote:
You know, it's cases like these that suggest maybe we should called CSI (and it's clones) "science fiction" rather than "procedural drama"? The "procedure" part is slightly in question at the moment. Science fiction is all they've ever been in the eyes of anyone even remotely familiar with evidence gathering
I know, but that's anything but the popular perception. This just might be one of the most high profile examples in ages.
|
So it's confirmed that Bao is the last state witness?
|
On July 06 2013 03:19 Taf the Ghost wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 03:11 farvacola wrote:On July 06 2013 03:10 Taf the Ghost wrote:
You know, it's cases like these that suggest maybe we should called CSI (and it's clones) "science fiction" rather than "procedural drama"? The "procedure" part is slightly in question at the moment. Science fiction is all they've ever been in the eyes of anyone even remotely familiar with evidence gathering I know, but that's anything but the popular perception. This just might be one of the most high profile examples in ages.
You would end up calling everything science fiction. It's fine to have these categories, people just need to realize it's a TV show, it's connection to real life can be minimal.
|
On July 06 2013 03:19 Taf the Ghost wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2013 03:11 farvacola wrote:On July 06 2013 03:10 Taf the Ghost wrote:
You know, it's cases like these that suggest maybe we should called CSI (and it's clones) "science fiction" rather than "procedural drama"? The "procedure" part is slightly in question at the moment. Science fiction is all they've ever been in the eyes of anyone even remotely familiar with evidence gathering I know, but that's anything but the popular perception. This just might be one of the most high profile examples in ages.
Definitely. Part of me hopes that all this public interest in trials results in an increased awareness as to how these sorts of things go, but then I realize that's probably a bit idealistic 
|
On July 06 2013 03:22 xDaunt wrote:
So it's confirmed that Bao is the last state witness?
Not absolutely, but commentary has been that they should have ended with mother and brother instead of this witness.
On another note, this guy is probably coming off worse than Rachel Jeantel.
|
For reference, what West is doing with Bao right now is usually what happens in criminal cases. The State typically has a fairly solid case, and all that the Defense can do is poke holes here and there to create little pockets of doubt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
