Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by DaveFla, Jul 8, 2013.
That's what it all comes down to......will do.
Hasn't he used his 30 min rebuttal?
Me, too. I was sketchy on the state's evidence going into this thing, but I held out final judgment because I thought, surely, they had more than we knew of since they putting a man on trial for second-degree murder. None of the evidence the state put on seemed to contradict GZ's version of events, and much of it seemed to corroborate it. He may be guilty of instigating this whole thing and using unnecessary force, but that's not what it looks like with the evidence in hand. Emotions and "common sense" may tell some of us that he's guilty of something, but that's not supposed to be good enough in America. If this man is convicted with the State's case as weak (damn near non-existent) as it is, then it's a travesty for all us.
I see there is one more that has paid no attention to the evidence=John Guy
Apparently he had more. Still not quite sure how the minutes add up.
(with caveat: may the Lord's will be served, whatever the jury decides).
I have yet to hear this from the state, "according to the evidence". All I'm hearing is how can GZ do this or that, why did he do this or that. They are not basing this on the evidence.
Some people formed their conclusions when the incident first hit the news - overzealous white neighborhood watch guy shot a totally innocent unarmed black boy, throw him under the jail.
And then those people didn't watch the trial and/or view the evidence and testimony presented with an open mind.
And then when such people hear others talking about how the trial isn't going well for the State, rather than face the possibility that they might have been wrong about their premature, knee-jerk opinion of the case, they conclude instead that "the state did a horrible job."
No, the State didn't do a horrible job, per se. They presented a horrible case, because that's what they had.
NO PROSECUTING ATTORNEY COULD HAVE WON THIS CASE.
And I say that without the case even having gone to the Jury yet. It is impossible under the law for them to come back with a guilty verdict. That's not to say it is impossible for them to come back with a guilty verdict. Just impossible for them to come back with one that is supported by the law as applied to the facts as indicated by the evidence.
FFS... Fox's talking heads just kept chugging away, and we missed what Nelson said to the jury.
I didn't hear it either but I'm sure the objection had something to so with Guy instructing the Jury on the law.
That broke a lot of people around here, for sure.
This case with Trayvon is way different. As sad as it is, there really is no evidence to convict Zimmerman with, and most of the evidence they do have points to Trayvon being heavily at fault, even if GZ could have approached it differently.
But the Grant case, everybody and his brother has video evidence of Grant getting shot dead for no reason.
And shortly before GZ shot TM, Sanford had a case where one of their officer's sons viciously assaulted a homeless black man, which got recorded and posted to youtube. No charges were ever filed.
Cases like that one and the Grant killing make it hard for people to have any faith in the justice system, and even harder to view the Zimmerman case objectively.
He was getting too instructive on the reasonable doubt standard.
What about the skittles? :grin:
(...actually, they couldn't even produce those, right?).
"This is the truth," he concludes. WHAT was the truth?
Granted I was multi-tasking a bit but I didn't hear the theory. So what did George Zimmerman do, exactly?
Unfortunately, I fear that justice is not going to be served by this jury, simply because there is so much outside pressure (not to mention the Fear card), being played out in Sanford.
Zimmerman has been railroaded in this trial by a judge who has obviously been influenced by the liberal media's year-long anti-Zimmerman campaign.
But my prayers have been sent anyway in the hope that God will guide the jurors to do the right thing.
No, they had the actual bag I think. Although once they are done with it, I don't know what will happen to them. omnomnom skittles? They don't send drugs back to a jury room, is it a good idea to send candy?
Exactly, great point
Different styles, but I personally find it objectionable - and do - whenever the State starts talking about recompense or justice for the decedent.
A criminal trial is not about that whatsoever.
How can you convict someone when the physical evidence and eye witness testimony far out weighs the prosecution's circumstantial evidence. This trial is mind boggling.
They did have a horrible case but they did a horrible job on top of that. They could have come up with clearer alternative theories that could have countered Zimmerman's version of events.
The law that applies here is what has troubled me all along.