So, Trayvon Martin. (Updated 9/10: From the duh and oops departments)

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NEXT
 

ravenshrike:
Not true. For two separate reasons. The first being that the charge is Murder 2, not manslaughter. Thus the state must prove that Zimmerman not only killed Martin, but that he did so with depraved disregard for Martin's life. Given Zimmerman's injuries, which the prosecutor conveniently left out of her affidavit to the court which WILL come back to bite her in the ass during the trial, that alone would be a very difficult hurdle to overcome.

HOWEVER, while the self defense claim in Florida is an affirmative defense that must be made by the defendant, once raised the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that said claim is false. The defendant doesn't have to prove anything. Of course, if the defendant was involved in otherwise illegal activity at the time they cannot raise a self defense claim, but nothing Zimmerman did otherwise was illegal.

As for convicting him on manslaughter, Florida does not allow conviction on a lesser charge. Having brought Murder 2 charges, the state is stuck with them.

It is true. All the prosecution has to do is enter in their evidence. Since Zimmerman does not contest any of the evidence that's all just going through the motions. Zimmerman will then have to offer his mitigating circumstances and the burden is on him to prove that mitigating circumstances existed. At that point the prosecution theoretically doesn't have to do anything but spectate. Of course they wont do that, they will attack the credibility of his assertions, but they actually don't have to. The jury will be deciding the case on the merits of Zimmerman's assertions of mitigating circumstances and not on the case put forth by the prosecution because the prosecution's evidence is not what's in dispute.

And the prosecution leaving out Zimmerman's injuries from the affidavit is not a big deal at all. When they are formally entering a charge to the court they are only required to show that the elements of the crime they are charging someone with existed. That is all the evidence that they need to show to the court. As noted by the prosecution quoted in the bit earlier, they are under no obligation to offer exculpatory evidence. The only point at which them leaving out evidence becomes a problem is in discovery. The judge could have dismissed the charges if there was anything wrong with the affidavit. That is all the injury their case could have suffered from that as formally introducing the charges to the court was the only purpose of the affidavit.

edit: My mistake, it was a probable cause affidavit. Same thing here. It only needs to contain those elements necessary to establish probable cause.

TheStatutoryApe:

ravenshrike:
Not true. For two separate reasons. The first being that the charge is Murder 2, not manslaughter. Thus the state must prove that Zimmerman not only killed Martin, but that he did so with depraved disregard for Martin's life. Given Zimmerman's injuries, which the prosecutor conveniently left out of her affidavit to the court which WILL come back to bite her in the ass during the trial, that alone would be a very difficult hurdle to overcome.

HOWEVER, while the self defense claim in Florida is an affirmative defense that must be made by the defendant, once raised the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that said claim is false. The defendant doesn't have to prove anything. Of course, if the defendant was involved in otherwise illegal activity at the time they cannot raise a self defense claim, but nothing Zimmerman did otherwise was illegal.

As for convicting him on manslaughter, Florida does not allow conviction on a lesser charge. Having brought Murder 2 charges, the state is stuck with them.

It is true. All the prosecution has to do is enter in their evidence. Since Zimmerman does not contest any of the evidence that's all just going through the motions. Zimmerman will then have to offer his mitigating circumstances and the burden is on him to prove that mitigating circumstances existed. At that point the prosecution theoretically doesn't have to do anything but spectate. Of course they wont do that, they will attack the credibility of his assertions, but they actually don't have to. The jury will be deciding the case on the merits of Zimmerman's assertions of mitigating circumstances and not on the case put forth by the prosecution because the prosecution's evidence is not what's in dispute.

And the prosecution leaving out Zimmerman's injuries from the affidavit is not a big deal at all. When they are formally entering a charge to the court they are only required to show that the elements of the crime they are charging someone with existed. That is all the evidence that they need to show to the court. As noted by the prosecution quoted in the bit earlier, they are under no obligation to offer exculpatory evidence. The only point at which them leaving out evidence becomes a problem is in discovery. The judge could have dismissed the charges if there was anything wrong with the affidavit. That is all the injury their case could have suffered from that as formally introducing the charges to the court was the only purpose of the affidavit.

edit: My mistake, it was a probable cause affidavit. Same thing here. It only needs to contain those elements necessary to establish probable cause.

Probable cause for Murder 2 requires a DEPRAVED DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE. Leaving out Zimmerman's injuries while still describing that the two had contact for over 40 seconds prior to the shooting is a lie. She quite literally perjured herself in the affidavit. Unless you think it would also be proper to bring a murder 2 charge against someone but leave out in the affidavit that their victim had been torturing them with a blowtorch seconds earlier on a table when the killer got loose and stabbed them to death with a scalpel. While true that the prosecutor does not need to show all their evidence during the affidavit, they MUST show the key elements of the crime. She edited one of those elements, and that is NOT acceptable.

In response to the July update:

Great. Perjury allegations against Zimmerman's wife. As if this wasn't already gearing up to be an ugly trial I hope evilneko is right and this won't have too big an effect on the trial, but as more and more time passes i think it's becoming clear that regardless of what verdict is reached, this is not going to end well.

ravenshrike:
Probable cause for Murder 2 requires a DEPRAVED DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE. Leaving out Zimmerman's injuries while still describing that the two had contact for over 40 seconds prior to the shooting is a lie. She quite literally perjured herself in the affidavit. Unless you think it would also be proper to bring a murder 2 charge against someone but leave out in the affidavit that their victim had been torturing them with a blowtorch seconds earlier on a table when the killer got loose and stabbed them to death with a scalpel. While true that the prosecutor does not need to show all their evidence during the affidavit, they MUST show the key elements of the crime. She edited one of those elements, and that is NOT acceptable.

She doesn't have to make her case to the judge in an affidavit. She only has to show the elements of the crime existed. A gun, a dead body, ect... those are the elements. Whether or not there were mitigating circumstances is for the defense to show. That Zimmerman was injured is not an element of the alleged crime, it only goes to Zimmerman's claims of mitigating circumstances which is the job of the defense to show. Zimmerman can even bring a motion for a pretrial hearing to ask the judge to throw the case out based on the evidence.

And again, this is pretrail. The only thing that could happen if there is a problem with the affidavit is that the judge will throw it out and ask for a properly done affidavit or throw the case out until the prosecution gets its act together. Once the trial gets underway it will be irrelevant unless they appeal after a guilty verdict.

ravenshrike:
Lies are funny things, as they require intent. Thus the state must prove that the Zimmermans took the paypal money to be considered theirs for the purpose of spending as they saw fit.

You mean like Zimmerman being recorded on the phone telling his wife to use the donated money to pay off their credit card bills?

Or like Zimmerman's wife telling Zimmerman they had US$155,000 in funds, a 5 days before she told the court they had nothing? An 'honest' person would have mentioned the US$155,000 to the court and made an excuse as to why it could not be used for the bond (going to legal fees) not denied any knowledge of the existance of these funds.

Or Zimmerman's wife 'avoiding' federal banking scrutiny by making transfers of under the US$10,000 threshold? She transfered US$9,990 (4), US$9,999 (2) and US$7,5000 (2) all in the 4 days prior to her telling the court the entire family had no money.

From the transcript;
http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2012/06/12/16/43/VMGzI.So.56.pdf

TechNoFear:

ravenshrike:
Lies are funny things, as they require intent. Thus the state must prove that the Zimmermans took the paypal money to be considered theirs for the purpose of spending as they saw fit.

You mean like Zimmerman being recorded on the phone telling his wife to use the donated money to pay off their credit card bills?

Or like Zimmerman's wife telling Zimmerman they had US$155,000 in funds, a 5 days before she told the court they had nothing? An 'honest' person would have mentioned the US$155,000 to the court and made an excuse as to why it could not be used for the bond (going to legal fees) not denied any knowledge of the existance of these funds.

Or Zimmerman's wife 'avoiding' federal banking scrutiny by making transfers of under the US$10,000 threshold? She transfered US$9,990 (4), US$9,999 (2) and US$7,5000 (2) all in the 4 days prior to her telling the court the entire family had no money.

From the transcript;
http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2012/06/12/16/43/VMGzI.So.56.pdf

Care to guess at what point the paypal cutoff is for transfers? Care to guess at what point banks make you fill out paperwork to transfer money?

As for "an honest person", only a complete fucking moron mentions more than the bare minimum on the witness stand. You tell the minimal amount of truth needed to satisfy the question.

ravenshrike:

TechNoFear:

ravenshrike:
Lies are funny things, as they require intent. Thus the state must prove that the Zimmermans took the paypal money to be considered theirs for the purpose of spending as they saw fit.

You mean like Zimmerman being recorded on the phone telling his wife to use the donated money to pay off their credit card bills?

Or like Zimmerman's wife telling Zimmerman they had US$155,000 in funds, a 5 days before she told the court they had nothing? An 'honest' person would have mentioned the US$155,000 to the court and made an excuse as to why it could not be used for the bond (going to legal fees) not denied any knowledge of the existance of these funds.

Or Zimmerman's wife 'avoiding' federal banking scrutiny by making transfers of under the US$10,000 threshold? She transfered US$9,990 (4), US$9,999 (2) and US$7,5000 (2) all in the 4 days prior to her telling the court the entire family had no money.

From the transcript;
http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2012/06/12/16/43/VMGzI.So.56.pdf

Care to guess at what point the paypal cutoff is for transfers? Care to guess at what point banks make you fill out paperwork to transfer money?

As for "an honest person", only a complete fucking moron mentions more than the bare minimum on the witness stand. You tell the minimal amount of truth needed to satisfy the question.

"THE WHOLE TRUTH"

What you suggest is called Perjury.

ravenshrike:
Care to guess at what point the paypal cutoff is for transfers?

Try to get the facts right before posting...none of the trnasfers I mentioned were from/to PayPal.

ravenshrike:
Care to guess at what point banks make you fill out paperwork to transfer money?

Do you know why the banks make you fill out paperwork for transfers over US$9,999?

ravenshrike:
As for "an honest person", only a complete fucking moron mentions more than the bare minimum on the witness stand. You tell the minimal amount of truth needed to satisfy the question.

And what type of person thinks that bank transfers are not accessable to the authorities and so lies to the court about them?

It's horrific how mundane the ending of a life has become in our society. I'm not sure if so few people being shocked or even caring about such cases beyond the scholastic passing of time and the sadness that causes in me, speaks more to my inhumanity or theirs. When did murder and violence become so blase? When did such vulgarity slip into par for course?

Words all feel truly unenlightened and arrogant when plied to the discussion of something so definitive and unseemly. The warmest of thoughts themselves sound cold and sterile when the matter they seek to envelop towers over us all. If not for the sake of memory, it would seem almost rude to even attempt a dialog on the issue, as I don't think any of could do it justice.

Why do we keep killing one another :/

Clearing the Eye:
It's horrific how mundane the ending of a life has become in our society. I'm not sure if so few people being shocked or even caring about such cases beyond the scholastic passing of time and the sadness that causes in me, speaks more to my inhumanity or theirs. When did murder and violence become so blase? When did such vulgarity slip into par for course?

Words all feel truly unenlightened and arrogant when plied to the discussion of something so definitive and unseemly. The warmest of thoughts themselves sound cold and sterile when the matter they seek to envelop towers over us all. If not for the sake of memory, it would seem almost rude to even attempt a dialog on the issue, as I don't think any of could do it justice.

Why do we keep killing one another :/

Blame Canada, or the Jews. Or Muslims, or Black people. Most of all just Blame Canada. (Or Religion, that works too)

Nikolaz72:

Clearing the Eye:
It's horrific how mundane the ending of a life has become in our society. I'm not sure if so few people being shocked or even caring about such cases beyond the scholastic passing of time and the sadness that causes in me, speaks more to my inhumanity or theirs. When did murder and violence become so blase? When did such vulgarity slip into par for course?

Words all feel truly unenlightened and arrogant when plied to the discussion of something so definitive and unseemly. The warmest of thoughts themselves sound cold and sterile when the matter they seek to envelop towers over us all. If not for the sake of memory, it would seem almost rude to even attempt a dialog on the issue, as I don't think any of could do it justice.

Why do we keep killing one another :/

Blame Canada, or the Jews. Or Muslims, or Black people. Most of all just Blame Canada. (Or Religion, that works too)

Why can't we all just be like Buddha? He was so fat and content, like a jolly big bear of peacefulness you wanna hug and sleep on <3

Too weird? >_>

Clearing the Eye:

Nikolaz72:

Blame Canada, or the Jews. Or Muslims, or Black people. Most of all just Blame Canada. (Or Religion, that works too)

Why can't we all just be like Buddha? He was so fat and content, like a jolly big bear of peacefulness you wanna hug and sleep on <3

Too weird? >_>

I would appreciate it if people would stop spreading that particular... misconception




The founder of Buddhism, a man named Siddhattha Gotama, has about as much to do with the fat and happy image as he does with Osama Bin Ladin.

Clearing the Eye:
It's horrific how mundane the ending of a life has become in our society. I'm not sure if so few people being shocked or even caring about such cases beyond the scholastic passing of time and the sadness that causes in me, speaks more to my inhumanity or theirs. When did murder and violence become so blase? When did such vulgarity slip into par for course?

Words all feel truly unenlightened and arrogant when plied to the discussion of something so definitive and unseemly. The warmest of thoughts themselves sound cold and sterile when the matter they seek to envelop towers over us all. If not for the sake of memory, it would seem almost rude to even attempt a dialog on the issue, as I don't think any of could do it justice.

Why do we keep killing one another :/

What makes you think it is a matter of it having "become" a part of society? War and murder have both been a part of human life on a constant near daily basis since long before the first cities were founded. There are dozens of places and times in our history where the second or first most common cause of death within a nation was at the hand of another human being.

Whether you choose to believe it or not, violence is FAR less common than it used to be, and it is still becoming more and more rare. Our media allows us to be aware of it far more easily than we used to.

Asking when we became used to death as a society is useless, ask instead whether or not we will ever see a day where our descendants won't have to.

Heronblade:

Clearing the Eye:

Nikolaz72:

Blame Canada, or the Jews. Or Muslims, or Black people. Most of all just Blame Canada. (Or Religion, that works too)

Why can't we all just be like Buddha? He was so fat and content, like a jolly big bear of peacefulness you wanna hug and sleep on <3

Too weird? >_>

I would appreciate it if people would stop spreading that particular... misconception




The founder of Buddhism, a man named Siddhattha Gotama, has about as much to do with the fat and happy image as he does with Osama Bin Ladin.

Hey, don't knock future Buddha. Hmmm, is Buddha secretly a Time Lord?

Heronblade:
The founder of Buddhism, a man named Siddhattha Gotama, has about as much to do with the fat and happy image as he does with Osama Bin Ladin.

You are aware that there isn't any ONE buddha... Right?


Clearing the Eye:
It's horrific how mundane the ending of a life has become in our society. I'm not sure if so few people being shocked or even caring about such cases beyond the scholastic passing of time and the sadness that causes in me, speaks more to my inhumanity or theirs. When did murder and violence become so blase? When did such vulgarity slip into par for course?

Words all feel truly unenlightened and arrogant when plied to the discussion of something so definitive and unseemly. The warmest of thoughts themselves sound cold and sterile when the matter they seek to envelop towers over us all. If not for the sake of memory, it would seem almost rude to even attempt a dialog on the issue, as I don't think any of could do it justice.

Why do we keep killing one another :/

It is sad that a Trayvon Martin has died. I can not undo this however and I never even knew this person. What we can gain from this though is a discussion on the propriety of the justice system. In my eyes (and many others) Zimmerman has committed a crime. In some others he has committed a lesser crime or even none what so ever. Here we, as a small cross section of society, give voice to our opinions and frustrations about all homicides (justified or otherwise) and the manner in which the law treats them.

Some of us support a right to defend oneself, a right to defend ones neighbourhood, a right to be proactive in combating criminal elements. While I may not agree with some of these persons opinions of this case I sympathize with and appreciate their feelings.

Some of us call out society on the implication that a teen in the wrong place at the wrong time was a legitimate public concern and wonder that the colour of this young man's skin may have made him more of a "concern" than he would have been otherwise.

Still others may take a less personal approach and simply concern themselves with the "process" of the case. And while that may seem "cold", and perhaps for some it is rather cold, this sort of consideration may still speak to the justice any and all persons may find when their loved ones have been killed or they or their loved ones have been charged with murder.

Ultimately we all, as a society, shape and influence our justice system and it is important to attempt to understand it. At any time any of us may be on a jury to decide the fate of a peer. We are an element of this justice system. All the piss and show boating aside the discussion here could influence the outcome of future legal cases.

Just the thoughts of a gin soaked primate.

evilneko:
snip

Hey I just saw this update on the Trayvon Martin case. Apparently a witness testified that they were close with the family and that, the Zimmerman family "only like black people if they act like white people".

Helmholtz Watson:

evilneko:
snip

Hey I just saw this update on the Trayvon Martin case. Apparently a witness testified that they were close with the family and that, the Zimmerman family "only like black people if they act like white people".

I was debating whether or not to actually post about that story, really. I'm skeptical of the molestation allegations, but I did find other interesting details in the story, such as Zimmerman telling Terry Jones (yes, THAT Terry Jones) not to hold a rally for him and turning down Jose Baez (Casey Anthony lawyer) for counsel. Good on him for both, his case doesn't need to be tainted by either of those guys.

I mean, sure, the allegations might in fact be true, and even if they are once the story exploded in the press, the girl, her family, and anyone on her side would be accused of character assassination simply because of the timing. Thus, I was leaning toward not posting it, since the most likely result is just another flame war.

This shit just gets weirder and weirder. Apparently, Zim is now being accused of molesting a female acquaintance throughout their childhoods.

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/07/16/george-zimmerman-molested-girl-for-years-witness-says/

EDIT: Ninja'd. Ermahgerd.

Next thing we'll know what the guy had for dinner that one Sunday when planets aligned or something. I really see him as nothing more than just another "tough guy with a chip on his shoulder and an axe to grind", but really, would be nice if the media stopped dissecting him like he's some kind of a lab rat.

Vegosiux:
Next thing we'll know what the guy had for dinner that one Sunday when planets aligned or something. I really see him as nothing more than just another "tough guy with a chip on his shoulder and an axe to grind", but really, would be nice if the media stopped dissecting him like he's some kind of a lab rat.

The funny thing is this particular story doesn't seem to have created much of a blip in the media. Not even a whisper of it from Al Sharpton or Lawrence O'Donnell. Haven't even so much as seen it on the ticker on CNN. The cable news media is hyper-focused on the presidential race now it seems.

evilneko:

Vegosiux:
Next thing we'll know what the guy had for dinner that one Sunday when planets aligned or something. I really see him as nothing more than just another "tough guy with a chip on his shoulder and an axe to grind", but really, would be nice if the media stopped dissecting him like he's some kind of a lab rat.

The funny thing is this particular story doesn't seem to have created much of a blip in the media. Not even a whisper of it from Al Sharpton or Lawrence O'Donnell. Haven't even so much as seen it on the ticker on CNN. The cable news media is hyper-focused on the presidential race now it seems.

The only thing it did do is ensure that Corey will be disbarred and sued before this is all settled and done with. W9s claims of molestation are legally inadmissible in court. Under the federal rules of evidence it is known as Rule 608, however all states have something similar. Corey just flushed her career down the toilet and made herself personally liable.

ravenshrike:

evilneko:

Vegosiux:
Next thing we'll know what the guy had for dinner that one Sunday when planets aligned or something. I really see him as nothing more than just another "tough guy with a chip on his shoulder and an axe to grind", but really, would be nice if the media stopped dissecting him like he's some kind of a lab rat.

The funny thing is this particular story doesn't seem to have created much of a blip in the media. Not even a whisper of it from Al Sharpton or Lawrence O'Donnell. Haven't even so much as seen it on the ticker on CNN. The cable news media is hyper-focused on the presidential race now it seems.

The only thing it did do is ensure that Corey will be disbarred and sued before this is all settled and done with. W9s claims of molestation are legally inadmissible in court. Under the federal rules of evidence it is known as Rule 608, however all states have something similar. Corey just flushed her career down the toilet and made herself personally liable.

I don't think that they are going to even bring it up in court unless they use the cousin as a character witness against Zimmerman, in which case I doubt there would any penalty for the prosecution. In addition, apparently, you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Rule 608. 608 pertains only to giving evidence on the topic of the truthfulness of a witnesses testimony. Basically,it says that no evidence can be submitted pertaining to the witness's truthfulness unless the opposing party, in this case the defense, attacks their credibility/character for truthfulness.

Here is a citation for that http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_608

Did anyone see this? Zimmerman went to Hannity and well, I'll let the video from ABC News speak for itself.

Dude is a scumbag.

GrimTuesday:

Dude is a scumbag.

Just a fyi, but scumbag doesn't equate to being guilty of second degree murder.

I watched part of that interview on Fox's site, but it was broken into separate videos and I missed the clip where he said "it was all god's plan." What a ridiculous thing to say. That said I do think the ABC video does misrepresent things slightly. Zim "addressed the camera" at Hannity's behest, for one, and I suspect some context for other remarks has been removed.

I'm gonna see if I can find a full uncut video of the interview, though from what I've seen there's not much really new in it. I'd be sorry I shot a guy too, whether it was justified or not.

Edit: That was quick, this appears to be the full interview. Yep, 40 minutes. At that length I thought there'd be like 20 minutes of commentary from some yokel, but I skimmed through it and there doesn't seem to be any.

Gonna download it, just in case it gets removed. Also because it'd be more convenient that way. >.>

Helmholtz Watson:

GrimTuesday:

Dude is a scumbag.

Just a fyi, but scumbag doesn't equate to being guilty of second degree murder.

I never said it did (although I think he should at least be convicted of manslaughter), but the fact still remains that the guy is a scumbag. I mean, what type of person goes on national TV and says that he thinks its god's plan that he shot some kid?

GrimTuesday:

Helmholtz Watson:

GrimTuesday:

Dude is a scumbag.

Just a fyi, but scumbag doesn't equate to being guilty of second degree murder.

I never said it did (although I think he should at least be convicted of manslaughter), but the fact still remains that the guy is a scumbag. I mean, what type of person goes on national TV and says that he thinks its god's plan that he shot some kid?

I'm not debating his character, I'm saying that people shouldn't decide whether or not he is guilty because he is a "scumbag".

The Self Defense claim is at least plausible.

God's Plan... Not so much...

Helmholtz Watson:
I'm not debating his character, I'm saying that people shouldn't decide whether or not he is guilty because he is a "scumbag".

His history of uncontrolled violent conduct clearly establishes a pattern though. Just like prior convictions, the pattern of his past behaviour makes his claims less or more plausible.

And since the guy beat his wife and assaulted police officers and what not, chasing after and attacking a black kid isn't that much of a stretch anymore. Zimmerman's past behaviour demonstrates it takes little to set him off and get him violent.

Little, like for instance a black kid committing the capital offense of being black while walking through Zimmerman's neighbourhood.

o god that interview was almost laughable. hannity might as well be on his knees. to call that an interview is being very polite, i mean fox news is known for its softball questioning but hannity was tossing beach balls and then hitting them himself.

He was apparently supposed to interview with Barbra Walters aswell and then backed out. According to her he showed up and said he would not do the interview "unless..." and here she says he demanded some condition for the interview that she could not agree to and the interview was canceled. She did not say what that condition was but the stories I have found said that he allegedly requested to have himself and his wife put up in a hotel for a month. Apparently, also, while she was on air describing what happened Zimmerman called into the show and wished to speak to her but she shot him down and didn't take the call.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19/barbara-walters-george-zimmerman-interivew-demands_n_1685668.html

No regrets? God's plan? "Skipping" and "walking leisurely in the rain" made him suspicious? "It was the gun"? I can't believe this'll help him. This was probably a mistake on the defense's part. Full of inconsistencies and unfortunate phrasings. And yes, Hannity was leading him along by the nose, basically, but if you expect anything better from that guy then you're just plain idiotic anyway.
While it may take many more months, I really want to see the ruling. And not just the ruling but also the explanation and reasoning for whatever ruling it ends up being.

Skeleon:

While it may take many more months, I really want to see the ruling. And not just the ruling but also the explanation and reasoning for whatever ruling it ends up being.

It's basically a "Hey, remember me? I need money!" piece to remind Fox Noise dittoheads he's still around. And last we heard, the trial date is supposed to be August 8. Man, back in May that seemed so far away, now it's only a couple more weeks.

evilneko:
It's basically a "Hey, remember me? I need money!" piece to remind Fox Noise dittoheads he's still around. And last we heard, the trial date is supposed to be August 8. Man, back in May that seemed so far away, now it's only a couple more weeks.

True, maybe they're just trying to organise more funds. Bad publicity is still publicity and all that.

This may be a dumb question, but the date of the trial doesn't really tell us anything, does it? I mean, a case can still take weeks, months, even years once the trial has officially started. Who knows when we'll see a ruling.

Skeleon:
No regrets? God's plan? "Skipping" and "walking leisurely in the rain" made him suspicious? "It was the gun"? I can't believe this'll help him. This was probably a mistake on the defense's part. Full of inconsistencies and unfortunate phrasings. And yes, Hannity was leading him along by the nose, basically, but if you expect anything better from that guy then you're just plain idiotic anyway.
While it may take many more months, I really want to see the ruling. And not just the ruling but also the explanation and reasoning for whatever ruling it ends up being.

Apparently after a commercial break Zimmerman rephrased his "No regrets" comments saying he did not understand the questions. My local radio show hosts figure his lawyer must have "advised" him during the break.

And there will not necessarily be any explanation and reasoning. The Jury may or may not decide to talk with reporters about their deliberations.

Skeleon:
This may be a dumb question, but the date of the trial doesn't really tell us anything, does it? I mean, a case can still take weeks, months, even years once the trial has officially started. Who knows when we'll see a ruling.

Not years. Pretrial can last years in some special circumstances, more often in civil cases, though we still have a right to a "speedy trial" in the US for criminal cases. The actual trial in criminal cases usually only goes for a week or two though I think it sometimes takes longer if there are problems or a staggeringly large amount of evidence to go over.

edit: exceptionally long deliberations by juries can extend that time frame as well.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked