On 4/30/13 9:44 PM, Tim wrote:
On Apr 30, 7:27 pm, Wayne B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:51:53 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Apr 30, 5:38 pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
...this has been a lively topic here. Update:

I'm not following any of it and really don't intend to, but then
again,.,, to each their own.

====

It's an important case with respect to the right to defend yourself.
Zimmerman muddied the water quite a bit with some of his actions so it
will be interesting to see how it all plays out in the courtroom and
jury room.

And that's where it should be played out. In the court room. Not by
biased reporting and public opinion.


Right, because we ordinary folks have no right to discuss current events.

On May 1, 5:28*am, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 4/30/13 9:44 PM, Tim wrote:









On Apr 30, 7:27 pm, Wayne B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:51:53 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Apr 30, 5:38 pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
...this has been a lively topic here. Update:

I'm not following any of it and really don't intend to, but then
again,.,, to each their own.

====

It's an important case with respect to the right to defend yourself.
Zimmerman muddied the water quite a bit with some of his actions so it
will be interesting to see how it all plays out in the courtroom and
jury room.

And that's where it should be played out. In the court room. Not by
biased reporting and public opinion.

Right, because we ordinary folks have no right to discuss current events.

discuss all you want, but is it proper to condemn someone without a
benefit of a fair trial?

After all Harry, your title of this thread says you do.

On 5/1/13 7:19 AM, Tim wrote:
On May 1, 5:28 am, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 4/30/13 9:44 PM, Tim wrote:









On Apr 30, 7:27 pm, Wayne B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:51:53 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Apr 30, 5:38 pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
...this has been a lively topic here. Update:

I'm not following any of it and really don't intend to, but then
again,.,, to each their own.

====

It's an important case with respect to the right to defend yourself.
Zimmerman muddied the water quite a bit with some of his actions so it
will be interesting to see how it all plays out in the courtroom and
jury room.

And that's where it should be played out. In the court room. Not by
biased reporting and public opinion.

Right, because we ordinary folks have no right to discuss current events.

discuss all you want, but is it proper to condemn someone without a
benefit of a fair trial?

After all Harry, your title of this thread says you do.


Zimmerman shot the kid. Zimmerman for whatever reason is not claiming he
was standing his ground. I think Zimmerman provoked a fight and then
when he was called out on it, he went to get his gun. I don't know what
the result of a "fair trial" may be in a gun happy state.

On Wed, 01 May 2013 00:47:41 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:38:43 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

...this has been a lively topic here. Update:


The man charged with murdering Trayvon Martin waived his right to a
pre-trial self-defense immunity hearing during a Tuesday morning court
appearance in Sanford, Fla.

Under oath, George Zimmerman told Circuit Judge Debra Nelson that he
understood Florida's self-defense laws, that he had talked to his
lawyers about the "stand-your-ground" statute, and that he decided not
to have a pre-trial immunity hearing. The decision is seen by at least
one expert as wise but risky.

Zimmerman will not be allowed to have such a hearing after a jury has
made its decision but will also not have to testify twice. If he had
chosen to have the immunity hearing, Zimmerman could have claimed self
defense before a judge without a jury and if successful, could have been
cleared of the murder charge.

"George wants this case before a jury of his peers -- that's where he's
going to be acquitted," his attorney, Mark O'Mara, said after the
hearing. He added that the case was a "straight forward self-defense
case," and would not comment further on the defense's decision to forego
the immunity hearing.

http://tinyurl.com/yw9tj7

I think he is getting bad legal advice but it may be that O'Mara knows
the process is so compromised by politics that he could not get a fair
immunity hearing.
People with far worse cases have prevailed in that hearing.

I'm thinking the lawyer wants a complete trial so folks like our biased friend here won't be saying,
"The judge was just a gun totin' nut."

John H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

In article ,
says...

On 4/30/2013 7:51 PM, Tim wrote:
On Apr 30, 5:38 pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
...this has been a lively topic here. Update:


I'm not following any of it and really don't intend to, but then
again,.,, to each their own.


He is just making the rounds through the topics... looking for his
fight. He needed to see if you were still here...

YOU are.

On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:55:02 -0400, John H
wrote:

I think he is getting bad legal advice but it may be that O'Mara knows
the process is so compromised by politics that he could not get a fair
immunity hearing.
People with far worse cases have prevailed in that hearing.

I'm thinking the lawyer wants a complete trial so folks like our biased friend here won't be saying,
"The judge was just a gun totin' nut."

=======

Zimmerman's lawyer can still raise the "Stand Your Ground" defense
during the trial. I think he wanted to avoid the risk of presenting
that defense twice. The hearing judge would have been under a great
deal of political pressure just like the original prosecutor. The
jury will be under no political pressure at all, and it seems unlikely
that they will be able to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Most likely outcome is either acquittal or a hung jury.

wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 06:13:13 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 5/1/13 12:47 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:38:43 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


http://tinyurl.com/yw9tj7

I think he is getting bad legal advice but it may be that O'Mara knows
the process is so compromised by politics that he could not get a fair
immunity hearing.
People with far worse cases have prevailed in that hearing.



Well, of course. Shoot away, and then claim stand your ground.

There was the beating he took before he pulled his gun.

Alleged beating

On 5/1/13 11:18 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:55:02 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Wed, 01 May 2013 00:47:41 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:38:43 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

...this has been a lively topic here. Update:


The man charged with murdering Trayvon Martin waived his right to a
pre-trial self-defense immunity hearing during a Tuesday morning court
appearance in Sanford, Fla.

Under oath, George Zimmerman told Circuit Judge Debra Nelson that he
understood Florida's self-defense laws, that he had talked to his
lawyers about the "stand-your-ground" statute, and that he decided not
to have a pre-trial immunity hearing. The decision is seen by at least
one expert as wise but risky.

Zimmerman will not be allowed to have such a hearing after a jury has
made its decision but will also not have to testify twice. If he had
chosen to have the immunity hearing, Zimmerman could have claimed self
defense before a judge without a jury and if successful, could have been
cleared of the murder charge.

"George wants this case before a jury of his peers -- that's where he's
going to be acquitted," his attorney, Mark O'Mara, said after the
hearing. He added that the case was a "straight forward self-defense
case," and would not comment further on the defense's decision to forego
the immunity hearing.

http://tinyurl.com/yw9tj7

I think he is getting bad legal advice but it may be that O'Mara knows
the process is so compromised by politics that he could not get a fair
immunity hearing.
People with far worse cases have prevailed in that hearing.

I'm thinking the lawyer wants a complete trial so folks like our biased friend here won't be saying,
"The judge was just a gun totin' nut."

John H.

Judges are elected political hacks here and up there in a blue county
I imagine O'Mara trusts a jury more.


Scalia and Thomas are political hacks.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 01 May 2013 06:13:13 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 5/1/13 12:47 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:38:43 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


http://tinyurl.com/yw9tj7

I think he is getting bad legal advice but it may be that O'Mara knows
the process is so compromised by politics that he could not get a fair
immunity hearing.
People with far worse cases have prevailed in that hearing.



Well, of course. Shoot away, and then claim stand your ground.

There was the beating he took before he pulled his gun.

You have NO evidence of that.

On Wed, 01 May 2013 11:00:45 -0400, Wayne B wrote:

On Wed, 01 May 2013 07:55:02 -0400, John H
wrote:

I think he is getting bad legal advice but it may be that O'Mara knows
the process is so compromised by politics that he could not get a fair
immunity hearing.
People with far worse cases have prevailed in that hearing.

I'm thinking the lawyer wants a complete trial so folks like our biased friend here won't be saying,
"The judge was just a gun totin' nut."

=======

Zimmerman's lawyer can still raise the "Stand Your Ground" defense
during the trial. I think he wanted to avoid the risk of presenting
that defense twice. The hearing judge would have been under a great
deal of political pressure just like the original prosecutor. The
jury will be under no political pressure at all, and it seems unlikely
that they will be able to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Most likely outcome is either acquittal or a hung jury.

You're right. This way he can see what the prosecution has before making the final decision.

John H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!