The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
That's some funny stuff, and a great example of what not to tweet.Fangs wrote:There's also this (some language in this clip, but still hysterical):
http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/06/27/hil ... sy-friend/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Because it's a political trial seeking "social justice" and has nothing to do with the actual law.Rrash wrote:This is my first post on this thread, and I'm too lazy to read all 132 pages to see if this has been discussed, but here is my question to those of you who understand Florida law better than I:
The DA charged Zimmerman with 2nd degree homicide, not a hate crime. 1. Why doesn't the judge throw out the racially charged testimony, since even the DA felt this was a case of murder, not a crime committed motivated by racism. Isn't the judge responsible for keeping irrelevant testimony out of the courtroom? 2. Why doesn't the defense object every time even a small suggestion of racism as a motive is brought up? The jury should be clearly told this is not a question of whether Zimmerman was racist, racially profiled, etc., but a question as to whether he committed murder.
Again, maybe I'm not looking at this correctly, but I have wondered this all week.
Sorry, I wouldn't even call it social, and it's definitely not justice.VMI77 wrote:Because it's a political trial seeking "social justice" and has nothing to do with the actual law.Rrash wrote:This is my first post on this thread, and I'm too lazy to read all 132 pages to see if this has been discussed, but here is my question to those of you who understand Florida law better than I:
The DA charged Zimmerman with 2nd degree homicide, not a hate crime. 1. Why doesn't the judge throw out the racially charged testimony, since even the DA felt this was a case of murder, not a crime committed motivated by racism. Isn't the judge responsible for keeping irrelevant testimony out of the courtroom? 2. Why doesn't the defense object every time even a small suggestion of racism as a motive is brought up? The jury should be clearly told this is not a question of whether Zimmerman was racist, racially profiled, etc., but a question as to whether he committed murder.
Again, maybe I'm not looking at this correctly, but I have wondered this all week.
Didn't turn out to be a safe confrontational distance though did it...fickman wrote:I interpret following at a safe, non-confrontational distance - or "tailing" - as very different from "chasing".Cedar Park Dad wrote:Pawpaw wrote:Can you name one person who does or did?Cedar Park Dad wrote:Do you chase people through subdivision complex?
Zimmerman has been accused of doing that, but NONE of the evidence supports that claim.
His own statements support that claim. He followed TM through the complex, lost him, and turned around when the dispatcher told him to turn around (his testimony).
You don't speak left/collectivist? By "social justice" they mean that someone, even if they are innocent, must be sacrificed to appease the collective. "Social justice" in left-speak means no justice for their enemies: IOW, us.MeMelYup wrote:Sorry, I wouldn't even call it social, and it's definitely not justice.VMI77 wrote:Because it's a political trial seeking "social justice" and has nothing to do with the actual law.Rrash wrote:This is my first post on this thread, and I'm too lazy to read all 132 pages to see if this has been discussed, but here is my question to those of you who understand Florida law better than I:
The DA charged Zimmerman with 2nd degree homicide, not a hate crime. 1. Why doesn't the judge throw out the racially charged testimony, since even the DA felt this was a case of murder, not a crime committed motivated by racism. Isn't the judge responsible for keeping irrelevant testimony out of the courtroom? 2. Why doesn't the defense object every time even a small suggestion of racism as a motive is brought up? The jury should be clearly told this is not a question of whether Zimmerman was racist, racially profiled, etc., but a question as to whether he committed murder.
Again, maybe I'm not looking at this correctly, but I have wondered this all week.
She must have been an aucitoneer in her previous career.sjfcontrol wrote:Man, that woman that swears-in the witnesses talks FAST!!
Cedar Park Dad wrote:Didn't turn out to be a safe confrontational distance though did it...fickman wrote:I interpret following at a safe, non-confrontational distance - or "tailing" - as very different from "chasing".Cedar Park Dad wrote:Pawpaw wrote:Can you name one person who does or did?Cedar Park Dad wrote:Do you chase people through subdivision complex?
Zimmerman has been accused of doing that, but NONE of the evidence supports that claim.
His own statements support that claim. He followed TM through the complex, lost him, and turned around when the dispatcher told him to turn around (his testimony).
That witness has been known about since the night of the incident. His story has never changed, and everyone involved in the case has been well aware of it, including those who chose to charge Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder.RoyGBiv wrote:Prosecution's witness verifies Zimmermans story.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zi ... rts-style/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So.... Why is Zimmerman on trial?
Did this witness just come forward today and never been interviewed previously?
Some video of testimony here: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-guests-z ... ates-case/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Paraphrasing:
Witness: Cries for help are from the guy on the bottom.
Witness: Zimmerman was ALWAYS on the bottom.
Therefore: Zimmerman was crying out for help.
A-R wrote:Cedar Park Dad wrote:Didn't turn out to be a safe confrontational distance though did it...fickman wrote:I interpret following at a safe, non-confrontational distance - or "tailing" - as very different from "chasing".Cedar Park Dad wrote:Pawpaw wrote:Can you name one person who does or did?Cedar Park Dad wrote:Do you chase people through subdivision complex?
Zimmerman has been accused of doing that, but NONE of the evidence supports that claim.
His own statements support that claim. He followed TM through the complex, lost him, and turned around when the dispatcher told him to turn around (his testimony).
And who CAUSED the following distance to be unsafe and confrontational is the crux of the dispute in question.
All the physical evidence and much testimony points to GZ as the person who was ambushed AND no evidence nor testimony points to TM as the victim of anything other than a single GSW to the chest at muzzle-touch distance.
So, by your implication, GZ "chased" TM, caught up to him, allowed TM to knock him to the ground and beat him multiple blows to the face/head area, then murdered him?