|
11029. judithathome - 7/9/2013 6:08:34 PM Yesterday when Rick Perry made his non-announcement and said "The time has come......." with that long pause, I expected him to add "...the walrus said..." 11030. robertjayb - 7/9/2013 6:16:17 PM Not as yet, judith. I think the THC levels are in but no decision on the animation. Typed by me at 12:15 p.m. ????? 11031. judithathome - 7/9/2013 7:16:31 PM The judge has delayed her decision until after today's business...
I don't see how prosecution missed having a THC expert testify...they've practically made the case for the defense otherwise. (sarcasm) 11032. judithathome - 7/10/2013 7:19:57 PM Animation is out but not before the defense and prosecution almost came to blows after the judge left the dais last night.
11033. vonKreedon - 7/10/2013 7:35:11 PM I wonder if either of them are packing heat. 11034. robertjayb - 7/10/2013 10:26:26 PM Zimmerman will not testify. Smart. 11035. judithathome - 7/10/2013 10:31:41 PM Why should he? He knows he's won. 11036. anomie - 7/11/2013 12:02:36 AM Sad day for justice and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I predict a conviction. 11037. vonKreedon - 7/11/2013 1:10:33 AM Why do you predict a conviction? I'll be stunned if he's even convicted of manslaughter. 11038. anomie - 7/11/2013 1:24:43 AM Mainly because Zimmerman is not very likable and evryone seems to be clammering for revenge. It seems Martin is getting the benifit of the doubt rather than the accused. I can't think of a time when I have disagreed with Judith or Arky on anything, but even they seem ready to convict. Let's pole them now since the trial is mostly over. How say you Judith, Arky? Guilty or not? How would you actually vote if you were a juror. 11039. arkymalarky - 7/11/2013 4:23:11 AM Guilty of manslaughter, absolutely. Z is a despicable man and I say that only looking at what he actually did. If Z's action is allowed to stand without legal consequence it sets a bad precedence for future murderous confrontations and dramatically lowers the bar for when it's legally acceptable to shoot someone. I'm amazed at your inability to get that. 11040. arkymalarky - 7/11/2013 4:24:02 AM -dent 11041. arkymalarky - 7/11/2013 4:33:55 AM IOW, this is not about either of the men. It's about whether Zimmerman had a legal right to kill Martin in that situation. Period. If he did, we're all less safe in public IMO. 11042. anomie - 7/11/2013 5:02:52 AM I might agree with you if I knew what the "situation" was. I haven't seen any proof offered as to what it was. This is what worries me. If very smart people like you and Judith, (and I don't mean top be patronizing, really), can't see the problem here, then it's hopeless, not just for Zimmerman but for any of us who might be brought up on such charges. I hear very few TV lawyers talking about proof, but they all seem to KNOW what the "situation" was. Even Piers Morgan had to correct a TV Judge who was spouting off a lot of speculation as if it were fact. And she's supposed to be a Judge.
This trial has been an example of many, many things wrong with our trial procedures in general, but that's a different topic. I think proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt is on trial here. 11043. arkymalarky - 7/11/2013 5:24:41 AM no more so than with any other trial that I can see. it's always been a similarly imperfect system. Publicity makes it more complicated for the public, but that's always the case. Our right to walk down the street without getting shot, however, is being challenged. In our rapid reversion to a wild west culture we need to set better parameters. 11044. anomie - 7/11/2013 5:41:20 AM Don't be silly. Something happened besides someone just walking down the street. We just don't know what. So again, proof? You can send a man to jail for life with now proof?
I don't expect perfection from the legal system but this trial is just off the rails. There's good reason why the state didn't prosecute initially. They don't have a case and they knew it. Being such a high profile media case, they conjured as best they could, giving a jury the right to convict someone based on the emotional repsonse to a tragic situation instead of evidence.. As far as I can tell, you haven't made a case either, legal, moral or otherwise. You just keep going over the same preconvieved notions of what might have happend. And you talk as though it's just impossible for Martin to have been the aggressor. Why? You talk as if proof is just a nice option in an otherwise cut and dried case. 11045. anomie - 7/11/2013 5:41:54 AM now = no 11046. arkymalarky - 7/11/2013 6:00:12 AM No, Martin was followed, confronted the man, and was shot. He had no weapon, Z was told not to follow and kept on, and Z had no serious injury. No might there. If Zimmerman had acted as an even minimally responsible individual (see my example above), he would NEVER have stalked someone down a dark empty street. And he wouldn't get life and plenty of people are serving a lot more time for a lot less. He deserves jail time. If you think based on what is known that it was okay for him to shoot then I would not trust you with a firearm. Yet people like Z are given carte blanche to carry one wherever they want and fire based on their perceptions. This is a sobering fact. No speculation.
And they didn't even look at the incident until they were compelled by publicity. The authorities get no pass.
Under your reasoning anyone who shoots an unarmed individual with no witnesses should be acquitted if there's evidence the victim fought back. 11047. anomie - 7/11/2013 6:20:04 AM Arky, you're confusing fact with speculation and that goes to my main point. Much of what you claim as true has just not been proven or even shown with the preponderence of eveidence. You are speculating as to events and intent and usinf terms like "stalking" and on and on. And you don;'t even realize it, apparently, because otherwise I would not suppose you to be deliberately unfair. Z is not on trial for being stupid or irresponsible. He's on trial for murder...for breaking the law. You don't seem to know the difference. I'll give you irresponsible, not murder. 11048. judithathome - 7/11/2013 6:56:19 AM Z had previously had incidents of over-reacting...he had attacked a police officer; he had been in trouble with an incident with his former girlfriend...had an order of protection taken out against him. These facts were barred from testimony because they would be prejudicial. He is heard BEING prejudicial on the call..."they always get away with it".
It is a FACT he was told "we don't need you to do that" by the person at the other end of the call he made. There was no need whatsoever for him to follow that kid...the police were on their way.
I wasn't aware that "Neighborhood Watch" meant those on that watch be armed and suspicious and decide on their own to dole out justice...none of the numerous calls to 911 that he had made previous to this incident were allowed in testimony...there were MANY.
He is going to get off...what more do you want? He will more than likely be involved in another such incident down the line because he will have learned nothing more than what he knew when this happened...that "they always get away with it" and somehow deserve it. It was God's will...that is his true belief...disgusting.
|
