|
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 11 2013 02:51 dAPhREAk wrote:its a simple question. are you going to testify or not? the case is over today apparently. why are they playing games? judge isnt a prick.
The case isn't over until the defense rests. The defense can take as long as they want. After last night, it seems like the judge wants to get this case over with.
EDIT: Local TV lawyer says "In 20 years of being a lawyer, I've never had a judge override the clients lawyer to speak"
EDIT2: They are saying "dang", "that was insane" basically they are saying they've never seen this happen
|
On July 11 2013 02:51 ranshaked wrote:
This judge is being a prick.
I've been very impressed with the judge, to be entirely honest.
|
On July 11 2013 02:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:39 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2013 02:36 Kaitlin wrote:On July 11 2013 02:30 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2013 02:26 Kaitlin wrote:On July 11 2013 02:20 Plansix wrote:
Judges don't have opinions, they make rulings on facts that are presented to them. Judges do have opinions. In hearings everyday, they hear testimony from witnesses and make assessments of their credibility in order to apply a set of facts to make their ruling. Such assessments are their opinions as to the credibility of the witnesses. For one example... And if you question every ruling a judge makes and if it is bias, you might as well distrust the entire legal system. At the end of the day, it is made up of people who we trust to do a good job. Would you suggest we bury our head in the sand as opposed to being receptive to possible abuses brought to our attention ? How do you feel about "healthy skepticism" ? Its good, as long as it is "healthy". In this specific case, the judge made the right call, as the fact set for the case was not clear cut. It looks that way after the trial is nearly done, but that doesn't mean it looked that way at the time the Judge ruled. My only problem with this is that at the time the judge ruled: the state had already provided every bit of their case. Their case was done. The fact sets that support their case had already been provided... and it amounted to a whole lot of nothing except where it seemed to corroborate Zimmerman's story! The defense hasn't really brought anything new to the table except the pathologist, and even he didn't say anything we didn't already know!
Yes, and the judge was not willing to decide the case and wanted it to go before a jury. You think the case is terrible, but you don't know how the jury is going to rule. I don't either. And as a judge, I would be very reluctant to dismiss any murder charge like this one, since the evidence is not as clear cut.
Once again, its your opinion. You could say, "I would have dismissed the case", but that doesn't mean you get to question the ethics of the people who disagree with you. We are all entitled to our opinions, but when you start insulting other people or claiming that other people are amoral because they disagree with you, you open yourself to being yelled at.
|
On July 11 2013 02:53 ranshaked wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 02:51 ranshaked wrote:
This judge is being a prick. its a simple question. are you going to testify or not? the case is over today apparently. why are they playing games? judge isnt a prick. The case isn't over until the defense rests. The defense can take as long as they want. After last night, it seems like the judge wants to get this case over with.
she asked "do you need more time?" then "how much time?"
these arent groundbreaking questions. judges ask in every case. they have to put it on the record that the defendant waived his right to testify. if he wanted to wait until the end of the case to make the decision then say "i want to wait until the end of the case to make the decision." dont play games. west is a dumbass, and you could see on O'Mara's face that he didnt agree with it--at least that is how i read it.
|
On July 11 2013 02:53 ranshaked wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 02:51 ranshaked wrote:
This judge is being a prick. its a simple question. are you going to testify or not? the case is over today apparently. why are they playing games? judge isnt a prick. The case isn't over until the defense rests. The defense can take as long as they want. After last night, it seems like the judge wants to get this case over with. EDIT: Local TV lawyer says "In 20 years of being a lawyer, I've never had a judge override the clients lawyer to speak" EDIT2: They are saying "dang", "that was insane" basically they are saying they've never seen this happen
Remember that all politics are local, that Judge may have dealt with that defense attorney before, though I don't know. I believe the Defense has pushed for extra time before and the Judge might just be trying to reign them in a bit.
Edit: After reading dAPhREAk's response, I have to agree. Not answers the "How much time do you need" question from the Judge is a good way to get yelled at. Rule one of being in court, don't waste the court's time.
|
On July 11 2013 02:53 ranshaked wrote:
EDIT: Local TV lawyer says "In 20 years of being a lawyer, I've never had a judge override the clients lawyer to speak"
EDIT2: They are saying "dang", "that was insane" basically they are saying they've never seen this happen
What is the judge doing? Why is she interested if GZ takes the stand?
|
TLADT24920 Posts
What's with the judge getting pissed and the defense avoiding the question? Why not answer it straight up?
On July 11 2013 02:48 ZackAttack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:44 BigFan wrote:On July 11 2013 02:42 ZackAttack wrote:On July 11 2013 02:36 GreenGringo wrote:On July 11 2013 02:16 plogamer wrote:
Let's test this, TL is a reasonable jury imo: Unfortunately, TL isn't remotely the same as the jury in this case. TL is much younger, predominantly male, and has higher IQ than the general population. I agree and believe you, but I chuckled when I saw you threw in that "higher IQ" statement at the end. you're telling me that BW/SCII players don't automatically have 'higher IQ' by default? :O No, I agree. It's just funny because there is no data to back it up except some studies that show sc players have more logical and mathematical leaning thinking tendencies. It's funny because probably every group would say they have a higher iq then the general population.
lol I was just having some fun with his statement ^^
On July 11 2013 02:47 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:41 BigFan wrote:
I think someone commented when I said that the last witness doesn't have much testimony experience. I was talking in regards to testimony in front of a jury and such. That was one of the first things that the prosecutor asked him and you can tell at least in the early part of the questioning by the prosecutor that he wasn't doing well but he improved as it went on imo and did a good job. That witness has plenty of experience testifying in front of a jury, it is absolutely incorrect to say otherwise. This is his first time as an "expert witness" as an independent contractor. His experience testifying carries over, such things as looking at the jury when you answer, answering the questions asked, being clear and concise, not getting defensive under cross-examination, etc. This witness is clearly a trained and experienced at giving testimony in front of a jury.
Fair enough
On July 11 2013 02:47 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:45 Krohm wrote:On July 11 2013 02:44 BigFan wrote:On July 11 2013 02:42 ZackAttack wrote:On July 11 2013 02:36 GreenGringo wrote:On July 11 2013 02:16 plogamer wrote:
Let's test this, TL is a reasonable jury imo: Unfortunately, TL isn't remotely the same as the jury in this case. TL is much younger, predominantly male, and has higher IQ than the general population. I agree and believe you, but I chuckled when I saw you threw in that "higher IQ" statement at the end. you're telling me that BW/SCII players don't automatically have 'higher IQ' by default? :O BW maybe but SCII... that's a bit of a stretch. Get the BW Vs. Sc2 shit out of here. Like, seriously?
he was likely just joking, hope so at least lol but ya, let's not start something guys ^^
On July 11 2013 02:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:44 BigFan wrote:On July 11 2013 02:42 ZackAttack wrote:On July 11 2013 02:36 GreenGringo wrote:On July 11 2013 02:16 plogamer wrote:
Let's test this, TL is a reasonable jury imo: Unfortunately, TL isn't remotely the same as the jury in this case. TL is much younger, predominantly male, and has higher IQ than the general population. I agree and believe you, but I chuckled when I saw you threw in that "higher IQ" statement at the end. you're telling me that BW/SCII players don't automatically have 'higher IQ' by default? :O Confirmation bias 
indeed good sir!
|
On July 11 2013 02:55 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:53 ranshaked wrote:On July 11 2013 02:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 02:51 ranshaked wrote:
This judge is being a prick. its a simple question. are you going to testify or not? the case is over today apparently. why are they playing games? judge isnt a prick. The case isn't over until the defense rests. The defense can take as long as they want. After last night, it seems like the judge wants to get this case over with. she asked "do you need more time?" then "how much time?" these arent groundbreaking questions. judges ask in every case. they have to put it on the record that the defendant waived his right to testify. if he wanted to wait until the end of the case to make the decision then say "i want to wait until the end of the case to make the decision." dont play games. west is a dumbass, and you could see on O'Mara's face that he didnt agree with it--at least that is how i read it.
Typically the judge will not ask this until the END of the case. The judge is rushing this case at this point, and from what everyone is saying on TV, the defense was correct in asserting that they did not have to answer at this point in time.
|
On July 11 2013 02:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:49 kmillz wrote:On July 11 2013 02:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 11 2013 02:15 kmillz wrote:On July 11 2013 02:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 11 2013 02:05 kmillz wrote:On July 11 2013 01:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 11 2013 01:52 kmillz wrote:On July 11 2013 01:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 11 2013 01:41 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
The lesser included charge of manslaughter will require Zimmerman be sentenced in the neighborhood of 30 years, so hardly a light punishment. Even the lesser, lesser charge of aggravated battery or assault (not sure which it was mentioned) would result in, I believe, mandatory 20. Jury won't be aware of those mandatory minimums, but they will apply. If Zimmerman is convicted of anything, he will do major, major time.
On another note, I just have a difficult time considering Trayvon as "victim" since if Zimmerman hadn't shot him, he would be likely charged with battery himself against Zimmerman, and that's subject even to whatever might have been done had Zimmerman not stopped the attack. Because people don't like it when fellow citizens walk around shooting anyone they please. So you're saying Trayvon Martin assaulted George Zimmerman because he was "walking around shooting anyone he pleases"? wut Or are you saying that people view Trayvon as a victim because George Zimmerman was "walking around shooting anyone he pleases"? Either way it sounds ridiculous. Guy who wanted to be a cop carries a gun around and night, sees kid walking home and then shoots him. Kid walking home after getting candy from store, runs from strange man and then gets shot by him. He asked why people would support Trayvon, I answered why. You conveniently left out some important details. I can do that too: Guy sees stranger peering into one of his neighbors windows Guy calls police on stranger reporting his suspicious behavior Stranger punches man, knocks him on the ground and starts slamming his head into the ground. See how idiotic it is to leave out important details just because they inconvenience your narrative? Guy leaves car, ends up near boy's home, altercation begins leaving boy shot. Are you seriously going to keep playing this game? Face it, the reason people want to see Trayvon as the victim is because the media made it national news that a white man gunned down a black boy and has been consistently one-sided against George Zimmerman from the beginning..people don't care if George Zimmerman was acting in self-defense because they already have it in their mind that he racially profiled Trayvon and shot him because he is black. I wasn't playing any game. The question was asked about why people would support Zimmerman, I responded. You attempted to disprove it by forgetting to point out that Zimmerman left his car and was near Trayvon's house--I simply filled in the blanks. I've already concluded (and stated so multiple times in the past several pages) that until John Good's testimony is refuted it is impossible to convict Zimmerman; and that's even if Zimmerman is a cross burning nazi who was looking for a random black man to put in a conventional oven one hacked off limb at a time, John Good's testimony still proves self defense. So far the prosecution isn't even touching Good's testimony; which means that Zimmerman can't be convicted. I didn't attempt to disprove anything, I was just showing how stupid it is to leave gaping holes in the story just because they inconvenience your side. You must have missed this part at the end of that post:
See how idiotic it is to leave out important details just because they inconvenience your narrative?
I was making a point, not seriously saying that those were the only events that happened. I am aware of both sides of the story, but you only like to talk about one of them! Fair enough, I misunderstood you. Too much residual bickering from the gun control thread  I still personally feel that Zimmerman should be punished, but the evidence doesn't allow for it to happen. Which sucks.
At least you admit it...lmao
I think alot of people feel the same way as you but won't admit that the evidence is what's getting in their way.
|
On July 11 2013 02:55 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:53 ranshaked wrote:On July 11 2013 02:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 02:51 ranshaked wrote:
This judge is being a prick. its a simple question. are you going to testify or not? the case is over today apparently. why are they playing games? judge isnt a prick. The case isn't over until the defense rests. The defense can take as long as they want. After last night, it seems like the judge wants to get this case over with. she asked "do you need more time?" then "how much time?" these arent groundbreaking questions. judges ask in every case. they have to put it on the record that the defendant waived his right to testify. if he wanted to wait until the end of the case to make the decision then say "i want to wait until the end of the case to make the decision." dont play games. west is a dumbass, and you could see on O'Mara's face that he didnt agree with it--at least that is how i read it.
What are the backgrounds of West and O'Mara? Are they long time partners at some firm? I've got the feeling more than once in this trial that O'Mara is less than pleased with West. From a laymens point of view, O'Mara has been the far better attorney. West had a few shining moments but also some very daft, very bizarre moments.
|
On July 11 2013 02:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:53 ranshaked wrote:On July 11 2013 02:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 02:51 ranshaked wrote:
This judge is being a prick. its a simple question. are you going to testify or not? the case is over today apparently. why are they playing games? judge isnt a prick. The case isn't over until the defense rests. The defense can take as long as they want. After last night, it seems like the judge wants to get this case over with. EDIT: Local TV lawyer says "In 20 years of being a lawyer, I've never had a judge override the clients lawyer to speak" EDIT2: They are saying "dang", "that was insane" basically they are saying they've never seen this happen Remember that all politics are local, that Judge may have dealt with that defense attorney before, though I don't know. I believe the Defense has pushed for extra time before and the Judge might just be trying to reign them in a bit.
I live near Sanford, (orlando area) and apparently the judge and the defense do know each other and are friends, but this case has put that friendship into a warzone
|
On July 11 2013 02:57 ranshaked wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:55 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 02:53 ranshaked wrote:On July 11 2013 02:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 02:51 ranshaked wrote:
This judge is being a prick. its a simple question. are you going to testify or not? the case is over today apparently. why are they playing games? judge isnt a prick. The case isn't over until the defense rests. The defense can take as long as they want. After last night, it seems like the judge wants to get this case over with. she asked "do you need more time?" then "how much time?" these arent groundbreaking questions. judges ask in every case. they have to put it on the record that the defendant waived his right to testify. if he wanted to wait until the end of the case to make the decision then say "i want to wait until the end of the case to make the decision." dont play games. west is a dumbass, and you could see on O'Mara's face that he didnt agree with it--at least that is how i read it. Typically the judge will not ask this until the END of the case. The judge is rushing this case at this point, and from what everyone is saying on TV, the defense was correct in asserting that they did not have to answer at this point in time.
Wait a second, did you just make an appeal to authority in regards to "what everyone is saying on TV"? If this case taught anyone anything, it should be to second guess anything the talking heads say.
|
On July 11 2013 02:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 11 2013 02:39 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2013 02:36 Kaitlin wrote:On July 11 2013 02:30 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2013 02:26 Kaitlin wrote:On July 11 2013 02:20 Plansix wrote:
Judges don't have opinions, they make rulings on facts that are presented to them. Judges do have opinions. In hearings everyday, they hear testimony from witnesses and make assessments of their credibility in order to apply a set of facts to make their ruling. Such assessments are their opinions as to the credibility of the witnesses. For one example... And if you question every ruling a judge makes and if it is bias, you might as well distrust the entire legal system. At the end of the day, it is made up of people who we trust to do a good job. Would you suggest we bury our head in the sand as opposed to being receptive to possible abuses brought to our attention ? How do you feel about "healthy skepticism" ? Its good, as long as it is "healthy". In this specific case, the judge made the right call, as the fact set for the case was not clear cut. It looks that way after the trial is nearly done, but that doesn't mean it looked that way at the time the Judge ruled. My only problem with this is that at the time the judge ruled: the state had already provided every bit of their case. Their case was done. The fact sets that support their case had already been provided... and it amounted to a whole lot of nothing except where it seemed to corroborate Zimmerman's story! The defense hasn't really brought anything new to the table except the pathologist, and even he didn't say anything we didn't already know! Yes, and the judge was not willing to decide the case and wanted it to go before a jury. You think the case is terrible, but you don't know how the jury is going to rule. I don't either. And as a judge, I would be very reluctant to dismiss any murder charge like this one, since the evidence is not as clear cut. Once again, its your opinion. You could say, "I would have dismissed the case", but that doesn't mean you get to question the ethics of the people who disagree with you. We are all entitled to our opinions, but when you start insulting other people or claiming that other people are amoral because they disagree with you, you open yourself to being yelled at. I didn't insult anyone in this thread, and I didn't claim that anyone here was amoral. I called into question the ethics of the prosecutors because they have shown that they have a severe lack of ethics. The lack of knowledge in how a jury will rule is entirely based on the fact that juries don't understand how to apply the law. If we knew that this jury was full of lawyers, it would be a virtual certainty that Zimmerman would be not-guilty. "Leaving it up to the jury" should be the last resort, not the first. That's why you need to have a case before you bring it to trial. The prosecutors didn't have a case.
If my opinion is that the prosecution has absolutely no case whatsoever, and is well aware of that, then my opinion is that they have a lack of ethics. It's not a difference of opinion about whether or not they should have done A or B... it's a matter of intentionally trying to put an innocent man in prison because of political bias/gain.
|
On July 11 2013 02:57 ranshaked wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:55 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 02:53 ranshaked wrote:On July 11 2013 02:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 02:51 ranshaked wrote:
This judge is being a prick. its a simple question. are you going to testify or not? the case is over today apparently. why are they playing games? judge isnt a prick. The case isn't over until the defense rests. The defense can take as long as they want. After last night, it seems like the judge wants to get this case over with. she asked "do you need more time?" then "how much time?" these arent groundbreaking questions. judges ask in every case. they have to put it on the record that the defendant waived his right to testify. if he wanted to wait until the end of the case to make the decision then say "i want to wait until the end of the case to make the decision." dont play games. west is a dumbass, and you could see on O'Mara's face that he didnt agree with it--at least that is how i read it. Typically the judge will not ask this until the END of the case. The judge is rushing this case at this point, and from what everyone is saying on TV, the defense was correct in asserting that they did not have to answer at this point in time.
are you just parroting stuff you hear on tv?
|
On July 11 2013 02:57 Kakaru2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:53 ranshaked wrote:
EDIT: Local TV lawyer says "In 20 years of being a lawyer, I've never had a judge override the clients lawyer to speak"
EDIT2: They are saying "dang", "that was insane" basically they are saying they've never seen this happen What is the judge doing? Why is she interested if GZ takes the stand?
his waiver has to be put on the record, under oath. its a constitutional right he is waiving.
|
On July 11 2013 03:01 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:57 ranshaked wrote:On July 11 2013 02:55 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 02:53 ranshaked wrote:On July 11 2013 02:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 02:51 ranshaked wrote:
This judge is being a prick. its a simple question. are you going to testify or not? the case is over today apparently. why are they playing games? judge isnt a prick. The case isn't over until the defense rests. The defense can take as long as they want. After last night, it seems like the judge wants to get this case over with. she asked "do you need more time?" then "how much time?" these arent groundbreaking questions. judges ask in every case. they have to put it on the record that the defendant waived his right to testify. if he wanted to wait until the end of the case to make the decision then say "i want to wait until the end of the case to make the decision." dont play games. west is a dumbass, and you could see on O'Mara's face that he didnt agree with it--at least that is how i read it. Typically the judge will not ask this until the END of the case. The judge is rushing this case at this point, and from what everyone is saying on TV, the defense was correct in asserting that they did not have to answer at this point in time. are you just parroting stuff you hear on tv?
Sometimes yes, but I'd take their word over my own opinions (especially with over 20 years of experience as a lawyer)
|
On July 11 2013 02:58 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:55 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 02:53 ranshaked wrote:On July 11 2013 02:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 02:51 ranshaked wrote:
This judge is being a prick. its a simple question. are you going to testify or not? the case is over today apparently. why are they playing games? judge isnt a prick. The case isn't over until the defense rests. The defense can take as long as they want. After last night, it seems like the judge wants to get this case over with. she asked "do you need more time?" then "how much time?" these arent groundbreaking questions. judges ask in every case. they have to put it on the record that the defendant waived his right to testify. if he wanted to wait until the end of the case to make the decision then say "i want to wait until the end of the case to make the decision." dont play games. west is a dumbass, and you could see on O'Mara's face that he didnt agree with it--at least that is how i read it. What are the backgrounds of West and O'Mara? Are they long time partners at some firm? I've got the feeling more than once in this trial that O'Mara is less than pleased with West. From a laymens point of view, O'Mara has been the far better attorney. West had a few shining moments but also some very daft, very bizarre moments.
i have no idea. never knew about west until trial. only knew of O'Mara.
|
On July 11 2013 02:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:54 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2013 02:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 11 2013 02:39 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2013 02:36 Kaitlin wrote:On July 11 2013 02:30 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2013 02:26 Kaitlin wrote:On July 11 2013 02:20 Plansix wrote:
Judges don't have opinions, they make rulings on facts that are presented to them. Judges do have opinions. In hearings everyday, they hear testimony from witnesses and make assessments of their credibility in order to apply a set of facts to make their ruling. Such assessments are their opinions as to the credibility of the witnesses. For one example... And if you question every ruling a judge makes and if it is bias, you might as well distrust the entire legal system. At the end of the day, it is made up of people who we trust to do a good job. Would you suggest we bury our head in the sand as opposed to being receptive to possible abuses brought to our attention ? How do you feel about "healthy skepticism" ? Its good, as long as it is "healthy". In this specific case, the judge made the right call, as the fact set for the case was not clear cut. It looks that way after the trial is nearly done, but that doesn't mean it looked that way at the time the Judge ruled. My only problem with this is that at the time the judge ruled: the state had already provided every bit of their case. Their case was done. The fact sets that support their case had already been provided... and it amounted to a whole lot of nothing except where it seemed to corroborate Zimmerman's story! The defense hasn't really brought anything new to the table except the pathologist, and even he didn't say anything we didn't already know! Yes, and the judge was not willing to decide the case and wanted it to go before a jury. You think the case is terrible, but you don't know how the jury is going to rule. I don't either. And as a judge, I would be very reluctant to dismiss any murder charge like this one, since the evidence is not as clear cut. Once again, its your opinion. You could say, "I would have dismissed the case", but that doesn't mean you get to question the ethics of the people who disagree with you. We are all entitled to our opinions, but when you start insulting other people or claiming that other people are amoral because they disagree with you, you open yourself to being yelled at. I didn't insult anyone in this thread, and I didn't claim that anyone here was amoral. I called into question the ethics of the prosecutors because they have shown that they have a severe lack of ethics. The lack of knowledge in how a jury will rule is entirely based on the fact that juries don't understand how to apply the law. If we knew that this jury was full of lawyers, it would be a virtual certainty that Zimmerman would be not-guilty. "Leaving it up to the jury" should be the last resort, not the first. That's why you need to have a case before you bring it to trial. The prosecutors didn't have a case. If my opinion is that the prosecution has absolutely no case whatsoever, and is well aware of that, then my opinion is that they have a lack of ethics. It's not a difference of opinion about whether or not they should have done A or B... it's a matter of intentionally trying to put an innocent man in prison because of political bias/gain.
Then I would recommend the following:
Voice your opinion that the prosecution has not case, but keep you opinion that they are unethical to yourself. Now you may say that you are entitled to your opinion and that is correct. However, I think some women are ugly and keep it to myself to avoid getting yelled at. This situation is similar, some people don't agree with your opinion and are willing to yell at you because of it.
|
On July 11 2013 03:03 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:58 crms wrote:On July 11 2013 02:55 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 02:53 ranshaked wrote:On July 11 2013 02:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 11 2013 02:51 ranshaked wrote:
This judge is being a prick. its a simple question. are you going to testify or not? the case is over today apparently. why are they playing games? judge isnt a prick. The case isn't over until the defense rests. The defense can take as long as they want. After last night, it seems like the judge wants to get this case over with. she asked "do you need more time?" then "how much time?" these arent groundbreaking questions. judges ask in every case. they have to put it on the record that the defendant waived his right to testify. if he wanted to wait until the end of the case to make the decision then say "i want to wait until the end of the case to make the decision." dont play games. west is a dumbass, and you could see on O'Mara's face that he didnt agree with it--at least that is how i read it. What are the backgrounds of West and O'Mara? Are they long time partners at some firm? I've got the feeling more than once in this trial that O'Mara is less than pleased with West. From a laymens point of view, O'Mara has been the far better attorney. West had a few shining moments but also some very daft, very bizarre moments. i have no idea. never knew about west until trial. only knew of O'Mara.
So O'Mara was a famous defense attorney prior to this who took the case pro bono to get exposure? Now I want to look them all up!
|
On July 11 2013 02:57 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 02:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 11 2013 02:49 kmillz wrote:On July 11 2013 02:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 11 2013 02:15 kmillz wrote:On July 11 2013 02:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 11 2013 02:05 kmillz wrote:On July 11 2013 01:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 11 2013 01:52 kmillz wrote:On July 11 2013 01:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Because people don't like it when fellow citizens walk around shooting anyone they please. So you're saying Trayvon Martin assaulted George Zimmerman because he was "walking around shooting anyone he pleases"? wut Or are you saying that people view Trayvon as a victim because George Zimmerman was "walking around shooting anyone he pleases"? Either way it sounds ridiculous. Guy who wanted to be a cop carries a gun around and night, sees kid walking home and then shoots him. Kid walking home after getting candy from store, runs from strange man and then gets shot by him. He asked why people would support Trayvon, I answered why. You conveniently left out some important details. I can do that too: Guy sees stranger peering into one of his neighbors windows Guy calls police on stranger reporting his suspicious behavior Stranger punches man, knocks him on the ground and starts slamming his head into the ground. See how idiotic it is to leave out important details just because they inconvenience your narrative? Guy leaves car, ends up near boy's home, altercation begins leaving boy shot. Are you seriously going to keep playing this game? Face it, the reason people want to see Trayvon as the victim is because the media made it national news that a white man gunned down a black boy and has been consistently one-sided against George Zimmerman from the beginning..people don't care if George Zimmerman was acting in self-defense because they already have it in their mind that he racially profiled Trayvon and shot him because he is black. I wasn't playing any game. The question was asked about why people would support Zimmerman, I responded. You attempted to disprove it by forgetting to point out that Zimmerman left his car and was near Trayvon's house--I simply filled in the blanks. I've already concluded (and stated so multiple times in the past several pages) that until John Good's testimony is refuted it is impossible to convict Zimmerman; and that's even if Zimmerman is a cross burning nazi who was looking for a random black man to put in a conventional oven one hacked off limb at a time, John Good's testimony still proves self defense. So far the prosecution isn't even touching Good's testimony; which means that Zimmerman can't be convicted. I didn't attempt to disprove anything, I was just showing how stupid it is to leave gaping holes in the story just because they inconvenience your side. You must have missed this part at the end of that post:
See how idiotic it is to leave out important details just because they inconvenience your narrative?
I was making a point, not seriously saying that those were the only events that happened. I am aware of both sides of the story, but you only like to talk about one of them! Fair enough, I misunderstood you. Too much residual bickering from the gun control thread I still personally feel that Zimmerman should be punished, but the evidence doesn't allow for it to happen. Which sucks. At least you admit it...lmao I think alot of people feel the same way as you but won't admit that the evidence is what's getting in their way.
Honestly, at the beginning of the trial I thought he was guilty of manslaughter. The prosecution should have been going after Zimmerman for Criminally negligent manslaughter for his recklessness in handling the situation. But they didn't. And because they didn't the only reasonable verdict would be not guilty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
