Zimmerman trial starts today.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by bobabode

I'm liking Larceny despite the somewhat dubious source of the recommendation, old man. Buffalo Trace has a bit of a spicey/sweetish taste and a cool looking label but the jury is still out. It works for doctoring up my wife's coffee.

I gotta get my wife drunk too, and if you ever got a good look at me you'd see why.

But if you're just gonna pour it in here coffee, why not use Ten High.

In the immortal words of Jack Lemmon, "She'll never know the difference."

Chas

[noonereal]

I just read this story on Fridays testimony.

"Detective Doris Singleton testified Monday that Zimmerman seemed somber and conflicted as she interviewed him after the February 2012 shooting. She said Zimmerman asked her about the crucifix around her neck and buried his head in his hands upon learning Martin had died.

"I had a silver cross on and he asked me if I was Catholic," Singleton said during testimony. "I said, 'No. I'm Christian. Why are you asking?'"

She said Zimmerman replied, saying that he had noticed the cross and told Singleton that it was "always wrong to kill" someone.

"I said to him, 'If what you're telling me is true then I don't think that's what God meant. [That] you couldn't save your own life,'" she told the court.

Singleton testified that a shocked Zimmerman replied, "He's dead?" to which she said, "I thought you knew that."

The story claims this testimony was a big "win" for Zim.

My question, are jurors really so dim that they can't see through nonsense like this?

[Charles]

Originally Posted by noonereal

I just read this story on Fridays testimony.

"Detective Doris Singleton testified Monday that Zimmerman seemed somber and conflicted as she interviewed him after the February 2012 shooting. She said Zimmerman asked her about the crucifix around her neck and buried his head in his hands upon learning Martin had died.

"I had a silver cross on and he asked me if I was Catholic," Singleton said during testimony. "I said, 'No. I'm Christian. Why are you asking?'"

She said Zimmerman replied, saying that he had noticed the cross and told Singleton that it was "always wrong to kill" someone.

"I said to him, 'If what you're telling me is true then I don't think that's what God meant. [That] you couldn't save your own life,'" she told the court.

Singleton testified that a shocked Zimmerman replied, "He's dead?" to which she said, "I thought you knew that."

The story claims this testimony was a big "win" for Zim.

My question, are jurors really so dim that they can't see through nonsense like this?

Maybe "Zippy" thought he was simply taking a nap?

Have to had it to you Noon, this is your best argument to date.

Chas

[bobabode]

[QUOTE=noonereal

My question, are jurors really so dim that they can't see through nonsense like this?[/QUOTE]

I hope not. A win for Zimmerman? Considering the source, why am I not surprised.

[noonereal]

I am listening to the recording of the screaming and I have to wonder why was someone screaming at all?

I have been in fights and I have seen several fights as a young adult and never screamed nor heard anyone scream like that.

My question is,who screamed and why?

What does the brain trust here think?

[whell]

Originally Posted by noonereal

My question, are jurors really so dim that they can't see through nonsense like this?

Its not about being "dim". Its about the prosecution making its case for anything from 1st Degree Murder to Manslaughter "beyond a reasonable doubt." Folks like you, noone, had already decided this case when the story first broke and before all of the facts had been fully vetted. You'd probably never have sat in the jury box for this case because you'd never have survived jury selection if you'd answered the questions truthfully about whether you could keep an open mind during the trial. But if you had sat in the jury box, you'd have to listen to hours of testimony, and you'd have to decide whether all of the fact could lead you to a conclusion that - beyond a reasonable doubt - Zimmerman committed a crime as defined by the law.

I have no idea what the jury will decide in this case. I see some of you are already attempting to advance a narrative that suggests that an acquittal on anything but murder one might mean that the jury was "dim". However, there are a number of reports that I've heard that suggest an objective analysis of the trial leaves a lot of room for the jury to acquit, because the prosecution did not make their case "beyond a reasonable doubt".

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimm...2#.UdnkHz7DVoY

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

Its not about being "dim". Its about the prosecution making its case for anything from 1st Degree Murder to Manslaughter "beyond a reasonable doubt." Folks like you, noone, had already decided this case when the story first broke and before all of the facts had been fully vetted. You'd probably never have sat in the jury box for this case because you'd never have survived jury selection if you'd answered the questions truthfully about whether you could keep an open mind during the trial. But if you had sat in the jury box, you'd have to listen to hours of testimony, and you'd have to decide whether all of the fact could lead you to a conclusion that - beyond a reasonable doubt - Zimmerman committed a crime as defined by the law.

I have no idea what the jury will decide in this case. I see some of you are already attempting to advance a narrative that suggests that an acquittal on anything but murder one might mean that the jury was "dim". However, there are a number of reports that I've heard that suggest an objective analysis of the trial leaves a lot of room for the jury to acquit, because the prosecution did not make their case "beyond a reasonable doubt".

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimm...2#.UdnkHz7DVoY

If EVERYTHING Zim claims is true he is guilty. He may not be guilty of murder under the law but by his own admission he committed manslaughter. Will you dispute this?

I do agree, I don't think I could be on jury as I would never place the technicality of the law over the proper execution of justice.

[bobabode]

Zimmerman says, "That doesn't sound like me" when the 911 recording was played for him but all of Zippy's friends say it was definitely George's voice today in court. Good friends, I guess, but I'm still waiting for the defense to explain why the yelling was cut short as soon as you hear the gunshot.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

Its not about being "dim". Its about the prosecution making its case for anything from 1st Degree Murder to Manslaughter "beyond a reasonable doubt." Folks like you, noone, had already decided this case when the story first broke and before all of the facts had been fully vetted. You'd probably never have sat in the jury box for this case because you'd never have survived jury selection if you'd answered the questions truthfully about whether you could keep an open mind during the trial. But if you had sat in the jury box, you'd have to listen to hours of testimony, and you'd have to decide whether all of the fact could lead you to a conclusion that - beyond a reasonable doubt - Zimmerman committed a crime as defined by the law.

I have no idea what the jury will decide in this case. I see some of you are already attempting to advance a narrative that suggests that an acquittal on anything but murder one might mean that the jury was "dim". However, there are a number of reports that I've heard that suggest an objective analysis of the trial leaves a lot of room for the jury to acquit, because the prosecution did not make their case "beyond a reasonable doubt".

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimm...2#.UdnkHz7DVoY

Murder one? Not even on the table, Mike. Noone is right, Zippy has by his own words convicted himself of manslaughter and in light of the testimony that I've heard that is the most likely outcome here.

The real criminals in all of this is A.L.E.C., the sumbitches over at the N.R.A. who wrote this shit assed SYG law.

[piece-itpete]

Chas, whell, I think the heart of the disagreement is, we somehow went from being a society where we hired the cops as an extension of our power, now, they are the power and we have no 'right' to protect ourselves - AND our property.

We work for the government and that's fine to many, it's easier.

Originally Posted by Charles

....

Personally, I think that firearms training, with an emphasis on legal usage should be taught in schools. The world in general, and the US in particular are awash in small arms.
.....

Agreed wholeheartedly. Could you imagine the reaction of the really left areas? They'd rather kids died then discuss guns.

Originally Posted by Charles

.....

How about three and one half...I know there's a half wit out there somewhere.

....

ROTFLMAO!!!!

Originally Posted by Charles

I do live in Missouri.

You always go "down" whenever you go to Missouri.

Chas

PS: That's pretty much one of the advantages of being around a drinking man. You can pull a carton of beer and 99% of the time you just made a new friend.

And even if you get crossways, the next day you can't remember what it was all about. Besides, you feel so shitty that you don't much care.

Very well said. And they say to quit drinking. My daddy didn't raise me to be a quitter!

Pete