zimmerman news

Status
Not open for further replies.
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
SirGreenThumb said:
Hope this wasn't aimed at me, because I posted something saying it wasn't my "comment" and then my next post to DD it specifically says that it shows the exact mentality of the people supporting TM. So yea. Not sure if it was or not, but if it was you should consider redacting. :wink: :lol:
Click to expand...
So, it was your comment as you owned it ( yet said you didn't for fake distance), you blatant plagiarist.

Who's comment is it then? You don't even attribute. Can't you not even come up with your own sophistry? Gotta cut & paste? :)
 
SirGreenThumb

SirGreenThumb

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Arm chair quarterback. Have you ever watched an entire proceeding? I have. Many times, plus my own, of course.

So, this is Law, it is why we have Law. It is because the Counties run themselves. Self rule and a jury verdict. The Law.

So, an amateur is allowed in our system to watch and make public comments. Really only in the USA is this so, to this degree.

Self rule requires we know.
Click to expand...
No, this is the first trial I have watched. But regardless, if the judge lets in something about the defendants past simply because they think it's relevant because he was attempting to become law enforcement, then it should be relevant that the state of mind of TM was that he wanted to be a hard ass with no respect for authority and should be able to look into his past to see what was his state of mind at the current time. Which also arises to the fact that he and that Jantel girl was having an argument off and on that day, which in turn made his state of mind on the aggravated side. If we are arguing state of mind and there is evidence that shows state of mind at the current time then both sides should be allowed to enter in whatever evidence is relevant to the case, whether or not it would be damning to the individual already dead.
 
SirGreenThumb

SirGreenThumb

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
So, it was your comment as you owned it ( yet said you didn't for fake distance), you blatant plagiarist.

Who's comment is it then? You don't even attribute. Can't you not even come up with your own sophistry? Gotta cut & paste? :)
Click to expand...
Negative ghost rider. The comment wasn't mine, but I found it amusing. Here be the link you requested.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57592060-504083/george-zimmerman-trial-prosecutors-want-jury-to-hear-evidence-about-zimmermans-knowledge-of-self-defense-laws/

Down in comments. By SpankySpankster.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
SirGreenThumb said:
No, this is the first trial I have watched. But regardless, if the judge lets in something about the defendants past simply because they think it's relevant because he was attempting to become law enforcement, then it should be relevant that the state of mind of TM was that he wanted to be a hard ass with no respect for authority and should be able to look into his past to see what was his state of mind at the current time. Which also arises to the fact that he and that Jantel girl was having an argument off and on that day, which in turn made his state of mind on the aggravated side. If we are arguing state of mind and there is evidence that shows state of mind at the current time then both sides should be allowed to enter in whatever evidence is relevant to the case, whether or not it would be damning to the individual already dead.
Click to expand...
You are just not quite seeing the REAL yet, imo. You keep saying should, as if that has a relevance. It doesn't. It is your way outside this county, opinion.

And that shows me you just need to watch more trials. There is no should, in Real. Just real. And that gavel, in case you didn't know is not symbolic, in the least. What is said between the gavel can put anyone in jail for contempt, for example.

Now, I was dragged in, with handcuffs. Hopefully it doesn't get to that to pique your interest in the Real of our situation in Self Rule. :)
 
SirGreenThumb

SirGreenThumb

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
You are just not quite seeing the REAL yet, imo. You keep saying should, as if that has a relevance. It doesn't. It is your way outside this county, opinion.

And that shows me you just need to watch more trials. There is no should, in Real. Just real. And that gavel, in case you didn't know is not symbolic, in the least. What is said between the gavel can put anyone in jail for contempt, for example.

Now, I was dragged in, with handcuffs. Hopefully it doesn't get to that to pique your interest in the Real of our situation in Self Rule. :)
Click to expand...
Ok fine, let me reiterate as to what is real then.

Yes it is a fact that Zimmerman was indeed wanting to become law enforcement, but wasn't able to based on his credit. (pesky credit ruins everything) So in that sense, it is relevant that his background be brought to the courts attention simply because he was well versed in the law. I have no qualms about that. Basically the prosecution wants to argue that because he knew the law, he wanted start his journey as a serial killer on some innocent little black boy, because obviously he is a racist and the foresight he had to work with little black kids to help them, or pass out flyers to help catch some white kid in the black community just shows how much of an evil genius he was. Right? Exactly.. Ok, Moving on.

Now, in the same instance Martin did in fact have a past of violence that is shown from his own words in text messages and bragging about it to his friends. He also had a history of theft and school records provide that also. So it is completely relevant for the evidence to be submitted to show that.

Am I wrong? If so, how? Is it because TM isn't the one on trial?
 
SirGreenThumb

SirGreenThumb

Well-Known Member
Don West just made it abundantly clear that even if Zimmerman "was" the attacker, the tables could be turned where he would be in imminent danger and be well within the rights of the law to use deadly force. :lol:
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
SirGreenThumb said:
Ok fine, let me reiterate as to what is real then.

Yes it is a fact that Zimmerman was indeed wanting to become law enforcement, but wasn't able to based on his credit. (pesky credit ruins everything) So in that sense, it is relevant that his background be brought to the courts attention simply because he was well versed in the law. I have no qualms about that. Basically the prosecution wants to argue that because he knew the law, he wanted start his journey as a serial killer on some innocent little black boy, because obviously he is a racist and the foresight he had to work with little black kids to help them, or pass out flyers to help catch some white kid in the black community just shows how much of an evil genius he was. Right? Exactly.. Ok, Moving on.

Now, in the same instance Martin did in fact have a past of violence that is shown from his own words in text messages and bragging about it to his friends. He also had a history of theft and school records provide that also. So it is completely relevant for the evidence to be submitted to show that.

Am I wrong? If so, how? Is it because TM isn't the one on trial?
Click to expand...
The dead guy? :) So, here is why we are not on the same page. You are trying to provide logic. Trials are mortal combat.

Logic is overrun every day, by dirty tricks. That is the law. Look up the history of hiring a thug to fight for you...a Champion.

So, it is a thug fight to define justice in this one case. But, the thugs don't define it, they are under the strict rules of evidence. All games are gamed. That is the point. The law is full of loopholes that are ammo for dirty tricks. So fight it out, as you too could go to jail, Mr Lawyers. That judge is armed or I'm a gay baby whale. All are at risk. A trial can end so badly that the judge is kidnapped and then killed. It happened in Marin Ct. in the 70s.

So, I know all this first hand. Back in the 70s my room mate was a trial lawyer that fell backwards into riches from Asbestos litigation. Doing divorces. But, both die before they can be divorced? All ship worker husbands infecting wives? Hey, Mabel, what is 2 + 2? :)

This all started in Federal Court and they are not playing softball. The dirty tricks cost him $100K that first year, out of pocket.

Now, though, Kenny has skin in the game. He wiped their noses in the dirty tricks after that. He had a box, he said, "of dirt."

It was never out of his sight. Files of what they knew and when they knew it was a killer....back in the 50s.

He would not leave it in the office for fear of break in.

He lives now on 11 acres in Kauai with a 270 degree ocean view. A self made man.
 
SirGreenThumb

SirGreenThumb

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
The dead guy? :) So, here is why we are not on the same page. You are trying to provide logic. Trials are mortal combat.
Logic is over run every day by dirty tricks. That is the law. Look up the history of hiring a thug to fight for you...a Champion.
So, it is a thug fight to define justice in this one case. But, the thugs don't define it, they are under the strict rules of evidence. All games are gamed. That is the point. The law is full of loopholes that are ammo for dirty tricks. So fight it out, as you too could go to jail, Mr Lawyers. That judge is armed or I'm a gay baby whale. All are at risk. A trial can end so badly that the judge is kidnapped and then killed. It happened in Marin Ct. in the 70s.



So, I know all this first hand. Back in the 70s my room mate was a trial lawyer that fell backwards into riches from Asbestos litigation. Doing divorces. But, both die before they can be divorced? All ship worker husbands infecting wives? Hey, Mabel, what is 2 + 2? :)

This all started in Federal Court and they are not playing softball. The dirty tricks cost him $100K that first year, out of pocket.

Now, though, Kenny has skin in the game. He wiped their noses in the dirty tricks after that. He had a box, he said, "of dirt."

It was never out of his sight. Files of what they knew and when they knew it was a killer....back in the 50s.

He would not leave it in the office for fear of break in.

He lives now on 11 acres in Kauai with a 270 degree ocean view. A self made man.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are "trying" to say, but is still doesn't make it right. In my mind logical reasoning is the best course of action. If it has to do with the judge being kidnapped because of their biased, then so be it. :lol:

Frankly it really doesn't matter what underhanded tactics the prosecution is using, nor does it matter that the judge used to be one herself and would automatically be biased to the side of the prosecution. The defense is killing them even in light of the new evidence and it is becoming irrelevant, but the fact still stands that if they can do it, the defense should be able to also. It doesn't matter if the aggressor is dead or not, and I lost all sympathy for him when his parents went and made all the money they did because of his actions and death.
The race baiting made me care even less.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
Impman said:
This is has been the worse day for the defense. George lied in that TV interview when asked if he had ever heard about 'stand your ground law'.... But I know it will not be significant to the jury.

SirGreenthumb is so right about the judge. You an see her body language and lopsided rulings she is completely biased for the prosecution
Click to expand...
Well, there is no law against lying in a TV interview. Maybe he wasn't lying. He also took an astronomy class but I think he can truthfully say he has never heard of astronomy. He is not the brightest bulb.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Now you are getting religious. :) Non-legal, right or wrong is entirely subjective, culture based in general,. but you're and my sense of these details of "it ain't right!" is from our parents...like snow fakes, similar but unique.

And so, in the Rule of Law, they are simply not relevant. We have no expertise at all. We are merely viewers and I'm a bit more buffy on it, is all. This trial could end in a lot of ways, including heart attack, suicide, murder....

It ain't over.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
One recently here in CA. Woman waited patiently for her daughter's rapist/killer to get to court, and killed him, in the court room. Shocking Justice in the rule of law.
 
SirGreenThumb

SirGreenThumb

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Now you are getting religious. :) Non-legal, right or wrong is entirely subjective, culture based in general,. but you're and my sense of these details of "it ain't right!" is from our parents...like snow fakes, similar but unique.

And so, in the Rule of Law, they are simply not relevant. We have no expertise at all. We are merely viewers and I'm a bit more buffy on it, is all. This trial could end in a lot of ways, including heart attack, suicide, murder....

It ain't over.
Click to expand...
Why do you speak in riddles? :lol:
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
Well, there is no law against lying in a TV interview. Maybe he wasn't lying. He also took an astronomy class but I think he can truthfully say he has never heard of astronomy. He is not the brightest bulb.
Click to expand...
Law against it? We really are way beyond that, are we not? :) It the jury sees a pattern of lying....if they see, his story changed in significant details of intent and state of mind....well, this is a state of mind case decided only on credibility.

So, look at the answer of Zimms to Shawn.. Look. It is all there to me. The micro-expression is smug. The vigorous shake of the head is a "this kid is lying movement."

Well, what would be real? If we really, didn't know? You, we all, anyone will recall the truth at that moment, and the micro-expression will be a blank look. There is no recall. It won't be the look of "nope, I knew you would ask me that." Or, "I'm not that stupid" etc.

Micro expressions influence people. We call it,"as plain as the look on their face."

He is not being tried for lying to the Hannity, no law against that. It goes to reasonable doubt of his entire state of mind.

Now, the nuance here is intent and state, those can change in an instant. They can swap back and forth. A tussle can become murder or self defense killing, either. Hence the trial.

And jurors, as a whole in America are cold. And this one is sequestered and hearing bullshit all day.

Justice is when the jury has spoken.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Riddles? I always thought he was stuck in a bad acid trip. I rarely read them, works well.
Click to expand...
It is good that you don't read it Drama. I don't want anyone getting hurt.

Your problem is perhaps not enough LSD?
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Riddles? I always thought he was stuck in a bad acid trip. I rarely read them, works well.
Click to expand...
You definitely have to read between the lunacy to find an intelligible thought. I tend to picture him as a tinfoil hat wearing hippie.

tinfoil_hat_antenna.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top