Reply With Quote
I'd be embarrassed to be any part of it.
Doesn't matter what you think. They had to let this dog and pony show start for political reasons. Doesn't mean they will get a conviction or even actually go to trial.
I'd be embarrassed to be any part of it.
Are you kidding? The prosecutor is gonna make millions off of this.
the guy stalked a kid and killed him.
absolutely worthy of trial.
shameless PussyEater saying he'd be embarrassed.
when did pussy eater become a bad thing?
you said it was a bad thing, not I
Peach? I could eat a peach for hours.
i think stand your ground as a defense should be inadmissible.
he stalked a kid with a gun.....and killed him.
Can you imagine the media scandal if the judge threw it out on perfectly good grounds, when so many people want an old fashion lynching?
It doesn't matter. Zimmerman was already found guilty by the media.
you saying he didn't stalk the kid with a gun and kill him?
Who cares what some pundits think. So far all that matters is that the judge determined that there was probable cause. Our justice may be flawed but its one of if not the best in the world.
She is reporting what he said. Martin thought someone was follwing him and he was scared. Seeing that Martin is dead there may be a provision for leeway on that testimony. I do not presume to know but you certainly like making stuff up that wins the case for Zimmerman. Maybe he really was getting the beat out of him. i do not presume to know.
More making up. Its all moot. Zimmerman is charged but posture more; its cute. I prefer facts not supposition.
It would seriously suck to be the judge on this case. No matter how he rules he's ed.
Well there has been Anthony, OJ, The Rodney King, Michael Jackson, and I am sure quite a few others to go by.
You really lack critical thinking skills.
Media scandal would be the worst of the concerns.
Maybe thats a good thing because in that situation typically the best thing to do is be fair and impartial ie do the right thing by rule of law.
If he dismisses it you will be one of the first to grab a torch and pitchfork.
Hardly. I would need to see the facts of the case. If you notice I stayed out of this when it hit. You can review the thread.
If he dismisses it you will be one of the first to grab a torch and pitchfork.
I only took any stance at all after the affidavit said Zimmerman confronted Martin. The prosecuter saying that probably means they do not believe Zimmerman's story about returning to his car. They are mutually exclusive.
I
DO
NOT
PRESUME
TO
KNOW
Your the one that continually argues like your his defense attorney. And I do believe in the underlying US principle of rule of law and burden of proof. Thats what is important to me.
To my Repug compatriots, I was talking to my lawyer today and he stated that "man with gun admits to shooting unarmed individual, with evidence that the kill shot came from the man's gun" is actually more than enough to establish probable cause for an indictment...which is all that has happened so far. Basically, the Special Prosecutor is correcting what she percieves to be a mistake by the police of not holding Zimmerman under arrest given the fact that he was a "man with gun who admits to shooting unarmed individual, evidence that the kill shot came from the man's gun."
That's all she needed to issue the capias. The ones I issue require a lot more evidence, but that's besides the point. Just think of it as Zimmerman being put through the process that the media/public believes should have occured on the night of the shooting.
Also, pay close attention to the judge in this case. She doesn't want to preside. Hmmmmm....I wonder why? And no, nothing to do with that phony conflict of interest. Nothing.
your mistake here is that the universe of probability yoni resides in is one that lends itself to highly speculative scenarios-unless of course they fail to favor the rooting interest.
No and yes. Stalking, no. Kill in self defense, yes.
Have you looked at the definition of "stalk" or "stalking?"
Was Zimmerman even attempting to be "stealthily?" Are you on the record as saying martin was already designated prey?Definition of STALK
1: to pursue quarry or prey stealthily
When it comes to the legal definition of "stalker," it means something to the effect or repeated unwanted contact attempts.
Please stop mis-characterizing things. You just show your ignorance. but then, my bad. Why should I expect you to change?
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-14-2012 at 03:09 AM.
Agreed, at least if there is little more evidence than what we know of. Without a solid piece of evidence one way or another, it doesn't matter what the ruling is. It will appear to be a ed up ruling by some.
I hope there is a clear decision on way or another. We need a clear conviction of Zimmerman or a clear Not guilty or even Innocent verdict.
The verdict of Innocent is rarely used in cases. I hope if the evidence warrants it, that Zimmerman's council asks for that possible ruling.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
