|
What a joke
I am hooked on watching the Zimmerman trial. I have it streaming on
my computer, so it isn't interrupted by TV commercials and am also monitoring the video on the left leaning MSNBC which occasionally breaks for commercials and the viewer misses much of the testimony by witnesses. The State called a doctor who is the chief medical examiner for the area that the Zimmerman event took place. She examined the photos of his head injuries, along with the report of the PA at the medical clinic who treated him. She testified that Zimmerman's injuries were "very minor" (repeating it at every opportunity) and, in her opinion, resulted from one blow to the nose and one, maybe two head bangings on the concrete walkway. This conflicts with Zimmerman's account of the incident. She went out of her way to minimize the injuries and insisted they were the result of minimal blows with not much force. During this lengthy direct examination by the State, MSNBC didn't interrupt a single time for a commercial. Then came the cross examination by the defense. The defense attorney started picking her testimony apart questioning why she was so sure the injuries were from so few blows. She became hostile occasionally and the attorney made good use of her frustration with him. She finally had to admit that it was indeed "possible" that Zimmerman had been hit not just once or twice, but multiple times. She did so with a hostile attitude. MSNBC had at least two lengthy station breaks during this cross examination. The viewers missed a good portion of the cross examination. Could that just be coincidence? So now the court is in a 15 minute break. The MSNBC crew are all excitedly discussing this "conflicting expert testimony" and about how the doc said Zimmerman only got hit a couple of times. You gotta be kidding me. |
What a joke
On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 16:21:15 UTC-3, Eisboch wrote:
I am hooked on watching the Zimmerman trial. I have it streaming on my computer, so it isn't interrupted by TV commercials and am also monitoring the video on the left leaning MSNBC which occasionally breaks for commercials and the viewer misses much of the testimony by witnesses. The State called a doctor who is the chief medical examiner for the area that the Zimmerman event took place. She examined the photos of his head injuries, along with the report of the PA at the medical clinic who treated him. She testified that Zimmerman's injuries were "very minor" (repeating it at every opportunity) and, in her opinion, resulted from one blow to the nose and one, maybe two head bangings on the concrete walkway. This conflicts with Zimmerman's account of the incident. She went out of her way to minimize the injuries and insisted they were the result of minimal blows with not much force. During this lengthy direct examination by the State, MSNBC didn't interrupt a single time for a commercial. Then came the cross examination by the defense. The defense attorney started picking her testimony apart questioning why she was so sure the injuries were from so few blows. She became hostile occasionally and the attorney made good use of her frustration with him. She finally had to admit that it was indeed "possible" that Zimmerman had been hit not just once or twice, but multiple times. She did so with a hostile attitude. MSNBC had at least two lengthy station breaks during this cross examination. The viewers missed a good portion of the cross examination. Could that just be coincidence? So now the court is in a 15 minute break. The MSNBC crew are all excitedly discussing this "conflicting expert testimony" and about how the doc said Zimmerman only got hit a couple of times. You gotta be kidding me. Seems like the whole country is lined up on one side or the other. It's starting to resemble this newsgroup...or at least it will when the verdict is handed in. |
What a joke
"True North" wrote in message ... On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 16:21:15 UTC-3, Eisboch wrote: I am hooked on watching the Zimmerman trial. I have it streaming on my computer, so it isn't interrupted by TV commercials and am also monitoring the video on the left leaning MSNBC which occasionally breaks for commercials and the viewer misses much of the testimony by witnesses. The State called a doctor who is the chief medical examiner for the area that the Zimmerman event took place. She examined the photos of his head injuries, along with the report of the PA at the medical clinic who treated him. She testified that Zimmerman's injuries were "very minor" (repeating it at every opportunity) and, in her opinion, resulted from one blow to the nose and one, maybe two head bangings on the concrete walkway. This conflicts with Zimmerman's account of the incident. She went out of her way to minimize the injuries and insisted they were the result of minimal blows with not much force. During this lengthy direct examination by the State, MSNBC didn't interrupt a single time for a commercial. Then came the cross examination by the defense. The defense attorney started picking her testimony apart questioning why she was so sure the injuries were from so few blows. She became hostile occasionally and the attorney made good use of her frustration with him. She finally had to admit that it was indeed "possible" that Zimmerman had been hit not just once or twice, but multiple times. She did so with a hostile attitude. MSNBC had at least two lengthy station breaks during this cross examination. The viewers missed a good portion of the cross examination. Could that just be coincidence? So now the court is in a 15 minute break. The MSNBC crew are all excitedly discussing this "conflicting expert testimony" and about how the doc said Zimmerman only got hit a couple of times. You gotta be kidding me. Seems like the whole country is lined up on one side or the other. It's starting to resemble this newsgroup...or at least it will when the verdict is handed in. ------------------------------------------ Personally, I haven't "lined up" with either side yet. I am fascinated with the trial. What I am noticing big time is the presumption of guilt by some of the liberal media and their possible attempts to keep information that may conflict with their attitudes away from viewers. I confess, I haven't watched Fox News to see what their slant is, if any. Maybe I'll do that for a while and see if their coverage is equally biased the other way. |
What a joke
|
What a joke
|
What a joke
|
What a joke
"iBoaterer" wrote in message ... This trial has gotten SO political and it's a damned shame. No matter what the outcome, there is going to be a large percentage of people who aren't happy with it. -------------------------------------- Similar but different from the O.J. Simpson trial. That one had external forces applying influence but it wasn't necessarily racial or political. |
What a joke
|
What a joke
Let's just hope that the end result doesn't deteriorate into a Rodney King type situation.
|
What a joke
|
What a joke
On 7/2/13 5:26 PM, True North wrote:
Let's just hope that the end result doesn't deteriorate into a Rodney King type situation. Are you referring to the four cops who beat the crap out of King being found not guilty of doing same or the riots that resulted from the miscarriage of justice? |
What a joke
I was thinking of the possibility of unrest if Zimmerman walks.
|
What a joke
On 7/2/13 4:23 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... This trial has gotten SO political and it's a damned shame. No matter what the outcome, there is going to be a large percentage of people who aren't happy with it. -------------------------------------- Similar but different from the O.J. Simpson trial. That one had external forces applying influence but it wasn't necessarily racial or political. I'm not really sure WHAT that was! OJ's lawyers totally overwhelmed the state's prosecutors, and the facts that the defense was able to show that some evidence was mishandled, that at least one of the cops intimately involved in the case was an avowed racist and engaged in shenanigans with some of the evidence and then "took the fifth" about it, and a number of other factors resulted in a not guilty verdict. If Zimmerman walks, it won't be because he stalked a young man, instigated a fight and, when it wasn't going his way, whipped out his pistol and shot and killed the young man. It'll be because the trial took place in a gun-happy state. |
What a joke
In article
, says... So now the court is in a 15 minute break. The MSNBC crew are all excitedly discussing this "conflicting expert testimony" and about how the doc said Zimmerman only got hit a couple of times. You gotta be kidding me. http://newsone.com/2001237/trayvon-martin-zimmerman- guilty/ It's nearly all racial/ethnic. Blacks on TV universally cast the worst light on anything about Zimmerman. CNN black "analysts/commentators" do it too. Same with the rabid anti-gun whites. Some whites blindly support Zimmerman because he's white. "Normal" people who rely on the scales of justice being fair and impartial are disturbed that justice is being made a circus by the racists and other nut jobs. Not too much different than the OJ trial. Personally, I think both shooter and victim were punks. I'll go with the trial outcome. But I can't see any way in the world that "depraved mind" can be proved against Zimmerman - unless the jury is incompetent. And that wouldn't surprise me at all. They might find him guilty of manslaughter. I wouldn't, given the evidence I've seen. Seems clearly self-defense from all evidence I've heard. But the selected jury will decide. That's all that matters, barring appeals. |
What a joke
On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 6:35:53 PM UTC-4, Boating All Out wrote:
Some whites blindly support Zimmerman because he's white. Zimm is not white. |
What a joke
In article 5eabcc79-3807-406c-a518-219aaab086d9
@googlegroups.com, says... On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 6:35:53 PM UTC-4, Boating All Out wrote: Some whites blindly support Zimmerman because he's white. Zimm is not white. Looks like you just got off the boat. |
What a joke
On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 3:03:57 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
"iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... Personally, I haven't "lined up" with either side yet. I am fascinated with the trial. What I am noticing big time is the presumption of guilt by some of the liberal media and their possible attempts to keep information that may conflict with their attitudes away from viewers. I confess, I haven't watched Fox News to see what their slant is, if any. Maybe I'll do that for a while and see if their coverage is equally biased the other way. There's also a lot of presumption of innocent by the conservatives, too. ----------------------------------------------------- You are *supposed* to be presumed innocent until found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But, Harry. you're pronounced Zimmerman guilty from the world 'go'. No need for a trial. |
What a joke
On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 5:00:36 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 7/2/13 4:23 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... This trial has gotten SO political and it's a damned shame. No matter what the outcome, there is going to be a large percentage of people who aren't happy with it. -------------------------------------- Similar but different from the O.J. Simpson trial. That one had external forces applying influence but it wasn't necessarily racial or political. I'm not really sure WHAT that was! OJ's lawyers totally overwhelmed the state's prosecutors, and the facts that the defense was able to show that some evidence was mishandled, that at least one of the cops intimately involved in the case was an avowed racist and engaged in shenanigans with some of the evidence and then "took the fifth" about it, and a number of other factors resulted in a not guilty verdict. If Zimmerman walks, it won't be because he stalked a young man, instigated a fight and, when it wasn't going his way, whipped out his pistol and shot and killed the young man. It'll be because the trial took place in a gun-happy state. "But, Harry. you're pronounced Zimmerman guilty from the word 'go'. No need for a trial. " |
What a joke
On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 2:46:46 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
Personally, I haven't "lined up" with either side yet. "But, Harry. you're pronounced Zimmerman guilty from the world 'go'. No need for a trial. " |
What a joke
On 7/3/13 6:09 AM, Tim wrote:
On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 5:00:36 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 7/2/13 4:23 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... This trial has gotten SO political and it's a damned shame. No matter what the outcome, there is going to be a large percentage of people who aren't happy with it. -------------------------------------- Similar but different from the O.J. Simpson trial. That one had external forces applying influence but it wasn't necessarily racial or political. I'm not really sure WHAT that was! OJ's lawyers totally overwhelmed the state's prosecutors, and the facts that the defense was able to show that some evidence was mishandled, that at least one of the cops intimately involved in the case was an avowed racist and engaged in shenanigans with some of the evidence and then "took the fifth" about it, and a number of other factors resulted in a not guilty verdict. If Zimmerman walks, it won't be because he stalked a young man, instigated a fight and, when it wasn't going his way, whipped out his pistol and shot and killed the young man. It'll be because the trial took place in a gun-happy state. "But, Harry. you're pronounced Zimmerman guilty from the word 'go'. No need for a trial." My opinion about the Zimmerman case matters no more than yours, Tim. I don't see the Martin kid's family getting justice for the murder of their son. |
What a joke
On 7/3/13 6:12 AM, Tim wrote:
On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 2:46:46 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: Personally, I haven't "lined up" with either side yet. "But, Harry. you're pronounced Zimmerman guilty from the world 'go'. No need for a trial." I think you are quoting someone else there, Tim. I think anyone who has a record of violence and who is outside his or her home and who shoots an unarmed stranger is likely guilty of a serious felony. Zimmerman has a record of violence, he was not in his home, he was advised to leave Mr. Martin to the police, he stalked Martin instead, and when the situation he created got away from him, he shot and killed Martin. |
What a joke
"Tim" wrote in message ... On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 2:46:46 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: Personally, I haven't "lined up" with either side yet. "But, Harry. you're pronounced Zimmerman guilty from the world 'go'. No need for a trial. " ------------------------------------ Tim, your attributes are off. Harry didn't say that. I did. |
What a joke
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... The pronouncements of those who are not the judge or jury don't matter. I think Zimmerman is guilty of a violent criminal offense that resulted from his actions alone, but I also know that the offense took place in Redneckville, Florida, that the victim was black, and most of the jury is white, so I don't expect Zimmerman to be found guilty. ------------------------------------- Wow. So much for giving consideration to any evidence and law that might indicate otherwise. Redneckville? 24 states have Stand Your Ground statutes. That's one shy of half the country. Al Sharpton has schooled you well, it seems. |
What a joke
On 7/3/13 6:31 AM, Eisboch wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... The pronouncements of those who are not the judge or jury don't matter. I think Zimmerman is guilty of a violent criminal offense that resulted from his actions alone, but I also know that the offense took place in Redneckville, Florida, that the victim was black, and most of the jury is white, so I don't expect Zimmerman to be found guilty. ------------------------------------- Wow. So much for giving consideration to any evidence and law that might indicate otherwise. Redneckville? 24 states have Stand Your Ground statutes. That's one shy of half the country. Al Sharpton has schooled you well, it seems. It is unfortunate that so-called "Stand Your Ground" laws allow a gun-toter to stalk an unarmed person, confront that person, precipitate an argument, and then shoot and kill that person. That is precisely what Zimmerman did, eh. Had Zimmerman not started the fight, Martin and his can of tea and bag of skittles would have made it safely to where he was visiting or staying with his dad. |
What a joke
On 7/2/2013 5:26 PM, True North wrote:
Let's just hope that the end result doesn't deteriorate into a Rodney King type situation. Unfortunately with the sense of entitlement and the greed of the minority leaders like Sharpton and Holder, it will be a riot... |
What a joke
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 7/3/13 6:12 AM, Tim wrote: On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 2:46:46 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: Personally, I haven't "lined up" with either side yet. "But, Harry. you're pronounced Zimmerman guilty from the world 'go'. No need for a trial." I think you are quoting someone else there, Tim. I think anyone who has a record of violence and who is outside his or her home and who shoots an unarmed stranger is likely guilty of a serious felony. Zimmerman has a record of violence, he was not in his home, he was advised to leave Mr. Martin to the police, he stalked Martin instead, and when the situation he created got away from him, he shot and killed Martin. -------------------------------------------- May be the case. But to be accurate, the "record of violence" you reference has been determined to be rather minor in nature as it relates to his prior arrest. Basically, he was drinking along with a friend and acted like an idiot, same as most drunks do. The initial charge of "resisting an officer with violence" was reduced to "resisting an officer without violence" and then dismissed when he agreed to enter an alcohol abuse program. As to the domestic violence accusation ... there was never a charge. An ex-girlfriend filed for a restraining order. Zimmerman filed a counter restraining order. Both were granted. That was the end of that. A "domestic violence" charge was never pursued by either. If Zimmerman's past is important then so is Martin's. There are several examples of alleged actions and behavior that diminish the portrayal of him being a upright, law abiding model citizen. The only one that has been officially acknowledged by records and his family is the school suspensions. In fact, he was under a suspension when this whole affair occurred. |
What a joke
On 7/3/13 6:39 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 7/2/2013 5:26 PM, True North wrote: Let's just hope that the end result doesn't deteriorate into a Rodney King type situation. Unfortunately with the sense of entitlement and the greed of the minority leaders like Sharpton and Holder, it will be a riot... Unfortunately? Such would be your fervent wish. |
What a joke
On 7/3/13 6:56 AM, Eisboch wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 7/3/13 6:12 AM, Tim wrote: On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 2:46:46 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: Personally, I haven't "lined up" with either side yet. "But, Harry. you're pronounced Zimmerman guilty from the world 'go'. No need for a trial." I think you are quoting someone else there, Tim. I think anyone who has a record of violence and who is outside his or her home and who shoots an unarmed stranger is likely guilty of a serious felony. Zimmerman has a record of violence, he was not in his home, he was advised to leave Mr. Martin to the police, he stalked Martin instead, and when the situation he created got away from him, he shot and killed Martin. -------------------------------------------- May be the case. But to be accurate, the "record of violence" you reference has been determined to be rather minor in nature as it relates to his prior arrest. Basically, he was drinking along with a friend and acted like an idiot, same as most drunks do. The initial charge of "resisting an officer with violence" was reduced to "resisting an officer without violence" and then dismissed when he agreed to enter an alcohol abuse program. As to the domestic violence accusation ... there was never a charge. An ex-girlfriend filed for a restraining order. Zimmerman filed a counter restraining order. Both were granted. That was the end of that. A "domestic violence" charge was never pursued by either. If Zimmerman's past is important then so is Martin's. There are several examples of alleged actions and behavior that diminish the portrayal of him being a upright, law abiding model citizen. The only one that has been officially acknowledged by records and his family is the school suspensions. In fact, he was under a suspension when this whole affair occurred. I'm sorry...when was Martin arrested or served with a restraining order? |
What a joke
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 7/3/13 6:31 AM, Eisboch wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... The pronouncements of those who are not the judge or jury don't matter. I think Zimmerman is guilty of a violent criminal offense that resulted from his actions alone, but I also know that the offense took place in Redneckville, Florida, that the victim was black, and most of the jury is white, so I don't expect Zimmerman to be found guilty. ------------------------------------- Wow. So much for giving consideration to any evidence and law that might indicate otherwise. Redneckville? 24 states have Stand Your Ground statutes. That's one shy of half the country. Al Sharpton has schooled you well, it seems. It is unfortunate that so-called "Stand Your Ground" laws allow a gun-toter to stalk an unarmed person, confront that person, precipitate an argument, and then shoot and kill that person. That is precisely what Zimmerman did, eh. ------------------------------------------- The "Stand Your Ground" laws in this country specifically forbid any action as you have described. What actually happened in the Zimmerman case will be determined by a jury after giving consideration to all the evidence presented in the trial. |
What a joke
On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 7:16:20 PM UTC-4, Boating All Out wrote:
@googlegroups.com, says... On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 6:35:53 PM UTC-4, Boating All Out wrote: Some whites blindly support Zimmerman because he's white. Zimm is not white. Looks like you just got off the boat. Maybe that's your problem. You've been drinking the kool-aide for too long. |
What a joke
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 7/3/13 6:56 AM, Eisboch wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 7/3/13 6:12 AM, Tim wrote: On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 2:46:46 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: Personally, I haven't "lined up" with either side yet. "But, Harry. you're pronounced Zimmerman guilty from the world 'go'. No need for a trial." I think you are quoting someone else there, Tim. I think anyone who has a record of violence and who is outside his or her home and who shoots an unarmed stranger is likely guilty of a serious felony. Zimmerman has a record of violence, he was not in his home, he was advised to leave Mr. Martin to the police, he stalked Martin instead, and when the situation he created got away from him, he shot and killed Martin. -------------------------------------------- May be the case. But to be accurate, the "record of violence" you reference has been determined to be rather minor in nature as it relates to his prior arrest. Basically, he was drinking along with a friend and acted like an idiot, same as most drunks do. The initial charge of "resisting an officer with violence" was reduced to "resisting an officer without violence" and then dismissed when he agreed to enter an alcohol abuse program. As to the domestic violence accusation ... there was never a charge. An ex-girlfriend filed for a restraining order. Zimmerman filed a counter restraining order. Both were granted. That was the end of that. A "domestic violence" charge was never pursued by either. If Zimmerman's past is important then so is Martin's. There are several examples of alleged actions and behavior that diminish the portrayal of him being a upright, law abiding model citizen. The only one that has been officially acknowledged by records and his family is the school suspensions. In fact, he was under a suspension when this whole affair occurred. I'm sorry...when was Martin arrested or served with a restraining order? ---------------------------------------- I'm sorry...where exactly did I say he was? |
What a joke
On 7/3/13 7:06 AM, Eisboch wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 7/3/13 6:31 AM, Eisboch wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... The pronouncements of those who are not the judge or jury don't matter. I think Zimmerman is guilty of a violent criminal offense that resulted from his actions alone, but I also know that the offense took place in Redneckville, Florida, that the victim was black, and most of the jury is white, so I don't expect Zimmerman to be found guilty. ------------------------------------- Wow. So much for giving consideration to any evidence and law that might indicate otherwise. Redneckville? 24 states have Stand Your Ground statutes. That's one shy of half the country. Al Sharpton has schooled you well, it seems. It is unfortunate that so-called "Stand Your Ground" laws allow a gun-toter to stalk an unarmed person, confront that person, precipitate an argument, and then shoot and kill that person. That is precisely what Zimmerman did, eh. ------------------------------------------- The "Stand Your Ground" laws in this country specifically forbid any action as you have described. What actually happened in the Zimmerman case will be determined by a jury after giving consideration to all the evidence presented in the trial. I have little confidence in southern, white juries deliberating on whether a white man killed a black man, but we shall see. |
What a joke
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 7/3/13 7:06 AM, Eisboch wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 7/3/13 6:31 AM, Eisboch wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... The pronouncements of those who are not the judge or jury don't matter. I think Zimmerman is guilty of a violent criminal offense that resulted from his actions alone, but I also know that the offense took place in Redneckville, Florida, that the victim was black, and most of the jury is white, so I don't expect Zimmerman to be found guilty. ------------------------------------- Wow. So much for giving consideration to any evidence and law that might indicate otherwise. Redneckville? 24 states have Stand Your Ground statutes. That's one shy of half the country. Al Sharpton has schooled you well, it seems. It is unfortunate that so-called "Stand Your Ground" laws allow a gun-toter to stalk an unarmed person, confront that person, precipitate an argument, and then shoot and kill that person. That is precisely what Zimmerman did, eh. ------------------------------------------- The "Stand Your Ground" laws in this country specifically forbid any action as you have described. What actually happened in the Zimmerman case will be determined by a jury after giving consideration to all the evidence presented in the trial. I have little confidence in southern, white juries deliberating on whether a white man killed a black man, but we shall see. --------------------------------------- There's no argument as to whether Zimmerman killed Martin. Zimmerman admits that. The question is was he justified in doing so. But, I understand your point even though I don't agree with your all inclusive, predetermined views on the subject. |
What a joke
On 7/3/2013 6:07 AM, Tim wrote:
On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 3:03:57 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... Personally, I haven't "lined up" with either side yet. I am fascinated with the trial. What I am noticing big time is the presumption of guilt by some of the liberal media and their possible attempts to keep information that may conflict with their attitudes away from viewers. I confess, I haven't watched Fox News to see what their slant is, if any. Maybe I'll do that for a while and see if their coverage is equally biased the other way. There's also a lot of presumption of innocent by the conservatives, too. ----------------------------------------------------- You are *supposed* to be presumed innocent until found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But, Harry. you're pronounced Zimmerman guilty from the world 'go'. No need for a trial. Harry is now thinking Zimm is not quite so guilty. Whichever way the verdict goes, it will be rendered by bat**** crazy, white, racist, Florida gun nuts. These folks are unpredictable. Remember Casey Anthony? |
What a joke
On 7/3/13 7:22 AM, Eisboch wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 7/3/13 7:06 AM, Eisboch wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 7/3/13 6:31 AM, Eisboch wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... The pronouncements of those who are not the judge or jury don't matter. I think Zimmerman is guilty of a violent criminal offense that resulted from his actions alone, but I also know that the offense took place in Redneckville, Florida, that the victim was black, and most of the jury is white, so I don't expect Zimmerman to be found guilty. ------------------------------------- Wow. So much for giving consideration to any evidence and law that might indicate otherwise. Redneckville? 24 states have Stand Your Ground statutes. That's one shy of half the country. Al Sharpton has schooled you well, it seems. It is unfortunate that so-called "Stand Your Ground" laws allow a gun-toter to stalk an unarmed person, confront that person, precipitate an argument, and then shoot and kill that person. That is precisely what Zimmerman did, eh. ------------------------------------------- The "Stand Your Ground" laws in this country specifically forbid any action as you have described. What actually happened in the Zimmerman case will be determined by a jury after giving consideration to all the evidence presented in the trial. I have little confidence in southern, white juries deliberating on whether a white man killed a black man, but we shall see. --------------------------------------- There's no argument as to whether Zimmerman killed Martin. Zimmerman admits that. The question is was he justified in doing so. But, I understand your point even though I don't agree with your all inclusive, predetermined views on the subject. I have no requirement that you agree with my preconceived notions! You're a better than reasonable guy, even when you are completely wrong (from my point of view). |
What a joke
On 7/3/2013 6:18 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
I don't see the Martin kid's family getting justice for the SHOOTING of their son. Justice for them is what Harry? An eye for an eye? |
What a joke
On 7/3/2013 6:21 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 7/3/13 6:12 AM, Tim wrote: On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 2:46:46 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: Personally, I haven't "lined up" with either side yet. "But, Harry. you're pronounced Zimmerman guilty from the world 'go'. No need for a trial." I think you are quoting someone else there, Tim. I think anyone who has a record of violence and who is outside his or her home and who shoots an unarmed stranger is likely guilty of a serious felony. Zimmerman has a record of violence, he was not in his home, he was advised to leave Mr. Martin to the police, he stalked Martin instead, and when the situation he created got away from him, he shot and killed Martin. So what if Trey grabbed Zimm's gun and killed Zimm like he promised to do? How would you call that scenario? |
What a joke
On 7/3/2013 6:57 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 7/3/13 6:56 AM, Eisboch wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 7/3/13 6:12 AM, Tim wrote: On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 2:46:46 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: Personally, I haven't "lined up" with either side yet. "But, Harry. you're pronounced Zimmerman guilty from the world 'go'. No need for a trial." I think you are quoting someone else there, Tim. I think anyone who has a record of violence and who is outside his or her home and who shoots an unarmed stranger is likely guilty of a serious felony. Zimmerman has a record of violence, he was not in his home, he was advised to leave Mr. Martin to the police, he stalked Martin instead, and when the situation he created got away from him, he shot and killed Martin. -------------------------------------------- May be the case. But to be accurate, the "record of violence" you reference has been determined to be rather minor in nature as it relates to his prior arrest. Basically, he was drinking along with a friend and acted like an idiot, same as most drunks do. The initial charge of "resisting an officer with violence" was reduced to "resisting an officer without violence" and then dismissed when he agreed to enter an alcohol abuse program. As to the domestic violence accusation ... there was never a charge. An ex-girlfriend filed for a restraining order. Zimmerman filed a counter restraining order. Both were granted. That was the end of that. A "domestic violence" charge was never pursued by either. If Zimmerman's past is important then so is Martin's. There are several examples of alleged actions and behavior that diminish the portrayal of him being a upright, law abiding model citizen. The only one that has been officially acknowledged by records and his family is the school suspensions. In fact, he was under a suspension when this whole affair occurred. I'm sorry...when was Martin arrested or served with a restraining order? When was Zimm suspended from school on several occasions for drug possession among other things. Introducing Trev's and Zimm's history into the record might tip the scales in favor of Zimm. Maybe not. |
What a joke
On 7/3/2013 6:31 AM, Eisboch wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... The pronouncements of those who are not the judge or jury don't matter. I think Zimmerman is guilty of a violent criminal offense that resulted from his actions alone, but I also know that the offense took place in Redneckville, Florida, that the victim was black, and most of the jury is white, so I don't expect Zimmerman to be found guilty. ------------------------------------- Wow. So much for giving consideration to any evidence and law that might indicate otherwise. Redneckville? 24 states have Stand Your Ground statutes. That's one shy of half the country. Al Sharpton has schooled you well, it seems. Often, Harry has lunch With Al and they have long conversations on thing that matter. Snicker. ;-) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com