Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
REMINDER: Cons trust juries to decide life or death, but not civil cases or Zimmerman
Author Message
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #41
RE: REMINDER: Cons trust juries to decide life or death, but not civil cases or Zimmerman
Max.

First... The McDonald's coffee case is a bad example of frivolity. They absolutely did increase the temperature to make the coffee more desirable. Whether it was for taste, or as others mentioned, that it was still hot when they got to work is immaterial. They intentionally did it and knew it could be a problem. Showing the pictures of the injury are equally immaterial. There are PLENTY of times that people are injured tragically through no fault of anyone. That doesn't make the other examples void. The fact that you have to tell people not to put their hands inside the wood chipper is evidence of a problem. Of course, this is what plaintiffs attorneys do.... They show a burned leg and a rich corporation or a clean cut picture of a kid and prey on the sympathy and jealousy of the jury. Those aren't pertinent facts to guilt or innocence, but that doesn't mean that people like you can't win or lose cases with them.

Second I didn't say, or at least I'm convinced I didn't say because I know better, that 51/49 is the burden. You said, in essence, that if the da can make up a story that a reasonable person would believe that would constitute a crime, then a person can be arrested. That is not the burden at all. Not even close. a Reasonable person, viewing the evidence at hand, would have to believe that a crime took place. They don't even have to know the crime specifically... The fact that a boy is dead, if that is all we had, is certainly compelling. The problem for your side is that we have much more. We have zimmermans phone call... And his history of phone calls.... We have his statement and claim of self defense... We have a witness that corroborates at least a portion of his story and we apparently have physical evidence which supports his story. Certainly not proof of innocence... But pretty well stretches the bounds of belief to think that someone would call the police and then pull a gun on a kid with skittles minding his own business and shoot him with the police moments away... That just doesn't pass the smell test.... Which is why those who want to string up Zimmerman introduced or created all of this false evidence against him... To change the baseline perception into something where Zimmerman was a vigilante just waiting for the right kid to kill... A black kid with skittles....

You should re-read gates yourself. Most of the "totality" information that you are relying on... Like the supposed utterance if coon, the supposed... He's suspicious, he's black... And the supposed "proof" that it was Martin screaming don't appear to be evidence at all. The evidence in hand, at least as far as it has been reported, taken in its totality.... Support the self defense claim... Not the murder claim. The BIGGEST thing going for Zimmerman is that he called the police and stayed on the phone with them for most of the time.... And then apparently stood around waiting for them to arrive after the event. It certainly appears that there was a struggle, which you wouldn't normally have if someone pulled a gun on someone from a distance. If he had a gun and was itching to use it, why would you get close enough to the person to get punched? I mean seriously.... Other than the death, what evidence do you have of a crime? Remember... Your opinion isn't evidence. I'm confident you will say "that the kid wasn't doing anything", but that is opinion, not fact, and the witness at the scene, Zimmerman, BEFORE the shooting, said he was acting suspicious.

Besides, counselor.... If your side of the argument is so obvious and mine is so arrogantly misinformed about the law, why hasn't he been arrested yet? Perhaps I'm not so misinformed, and/ or your side isn't so obvious. Or perhaps all of those idiots in Florida and within the justice department are equally misinformed as I am....

Boy... Talk about arrogant
(This post was last modified: 04-09-2012 06:39 PM by Hambone10.)
04-09-2012 06:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
smn1256 Offline
I miss Tripster
*

Posts: 28,878
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation: 337
I Root For: Lower taxes
Location: North Mexico
Post: #42
RE: REMINDER: Cons trust juries to decide life or death, but not civil cases or Zimmerman
Max, I'm sure you're a decent lawyer, but if you can't convince us of something - and you've had days of trying - how do you convince juries?
04-09-2012 07:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Max Power Offline
Not Rod Carey
*

Posts: 10,059
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation: 261
I Root For: NIU, Bradley
Location: Peoria
Post: #43
RE: REMINDER: Cons trust juries to decide life or death, but not civil cases or Zimmerman
(04-09-2012 07:34 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Max, I'm sure you're a decent lawyer, but if you can't convince us of something - and you've had days of trying - how do you convince juries?

Good question. Because I can can pick my juries and challenge for bias but I can't pick my audience here.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. --Upton Sinclair

Obviously the vast majority on here are ideologically conservative, and from what I gather, from the largest most reliable GOP demographic---old, white rich selfish Boomers who trust the GOP to keep their taxes low. Others have religious reasons, which again means arguing with them is pointless. Many have no interest in giving consideration to leftwing arguments or even engaging, and will argue the sky is red. I haven't seen today's responses to my thoroughly sourced auto bailout benkruptcy analysis but yesterday's were comically evasive and illogical. Most simply have no interest in reexamining their belief system. Which is fine, I like a challenge. 05-mafia
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2012 11:40 AM by Max Power.)
04-10-2012 11:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ninerfan1 Offline
Habitual Line Stepper
*

Posts: 9,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
Post: #44
RE: REMINDER: Cons trust juries to decide life or death, but not civil cases or Zimmerman
(04-10-2012 11:39 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I haven't seen today's responses to my thoroughly sourced auto bailout benkruptcy analysis but yesterday's were comically evasive and illogical.

Your lies and intellectual dishonesty continue.

Quote:Most simply have no interest in reexamining their belief system.

Pot, meet kettle.
04-10-2012 12:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #45
RE: REMINDER: Cons trust juries to decide life or death, but not civil cases or Zimmerman
(04-10-2012 11:39 AM)Max Power Wrote:  
(04-09-2012 07:34 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Max, I'm sure you're a decent lawyer, but if you can't convince us of something - and you've had days of trying - how do you convince juries?

Good question. Because I can can pick my juries and challenge for bias but I can't pick my audience here.

You mean, if you get to pick who decides, you can win, but if you can't, you don't, right?

Quote:It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. --Upton Sinclair

Obviously the vast majority on here are ideologically conservative, and from what I gather, from the largest most reliable GOP demographic---old, white rich selfish Boomers who trust the GOP to keep their taxes low. Others have religious reasons, which again means arguing with them is pointless. Many have no interest in giving consideration to leftwing arguments or even engaging, and will argue the sky is red. I haven't seen today's responses to my thoroughly sourced auto bailout benkruptcy analysis but yesterday's were comically evasive and illogical. Most simply have no interest in reexamining their belief system. Which is fine, I like a challenge. 05-mafia

You like a challenge, but by your own admission above, you dont usually win them.

Most of the people on here are libertarians, not conservatives. Most of those who are religiously conservative are socially liberal... Or st least moderate... And others are what I would call TRUE Christians, more interested in the golden rule than in convincing you to agree with them. Interestingly, there certainly are plenty of old white rich boomers in the democratic party.

As very few of us are in the 1%.... And only a rare few even in the top 5%, exactly how does our paycheck depend on lowering taxes on the rich??

Let's use a different metric. The country is fairly evenly split between the parties. Further, half of the population pays no income taxes. The other half pays anywhere from a few percent to around 50 including state taxes. If your claim is correct, that conservatives are only interested in keeping taxes low, it certainly implies that they are paying taxes... While democrats, or those who are more interested in raising them, or increasing benefits... Are in the other half. Talk about a group whose paycheck depends on their beliefs.

I'd sure like for someone on the left to explain to me how a tax specifically designed to ensure that everyone paid at least 25% in taxes like the AMT allows people like buffett to pay much less, while people who earn a small fraction of that, like 150-250k are capped by it?

Maybe logic and experience just tells people like us that taxes designed by the left to punish the wealthy rarely do anything to them, thought they certainly keep the competition for their spot down.
04-10-2012 01:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Max Power Offline
Not Rod Carey
*

Posts: 10,059
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation: 261
I Root For: NIU, Bradley
Location: Peoria
Post: #46
RE: REMINDER: Cons trust juries to decide life or death, but not civil cases or Zimmerman
(04-09-2012 06:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  First... The McDonald's coffee case is a bad example of frivolity. They absolutely did increase the temperature to make the coffee more desirable. Whether it was for taste, or as others mentioned, that it was still hot when they got to work is immaterial. They intentionally did it and knew it could be a problem.

Exactly. That's what I've said. They put the public at risk to sell more coffee.

Quote:Showing the pictures of the injury are equally immaterial.

No it isn't. She had 3rd degree burns and couldn't walk anymore. It's material because people laugh at the $2 million figure (which was reduced by the judge to $600k) without realizing the extent of her damages.

Quote:There are PLENTY of times that people are injured tragically through no fault of anyone. That doesn't make the other examples void. The fact that you have to tell people not to put their hands inside the wood chipper is evidence of a problem. Of course, this is what plaintiffs attorneys do.... They show a burned leg and a rich corporation or a clean cut picture of a kid and prey on the sympathy and jealousy of the jury. Those aren't pertinent facts to guilt or innocence, but that doesn't mean that people like you can't win or lose cases with them.

You seem confused on the elements of a tort (well, a great many things, but primarily this). You're right in that the picture has nothing to do with fault (ie, duty and breach), but that doesn't make it immaterial because it certainly has a lot to do with the final tort element, damages.

Torts 101

Duty - McDonalds, as everyone does, has a duty to act reasonably and avoid foreseeable dangers to others
Breach - McDonalds boiled its coffee at a temperature that would cause severe burns (because it helped sales)
Proximate causation - McDonalds decided to boil its coffee at 180 degrees and served it to Ms Liebeck, who less than a minute later spilled it on herself when trying to remove the lid
Damages - McDonalds is responsible for the damages it caused Liebeck (medical bills, pain and suffering etc). The jury in the case actually assessed Liebeck for 20% fault for not being more careful opening up the coffee lid. Her medical bills were several hundred K, and punitive damages were tacked on because McDonalds had received 700 complaints of serious burns and did nothing about it, though the judge later reduced it to $600k.

In the end, believe me, you don't want to have traded places with that woman. The media's "lol she didn't know coffee was hot" narrative plays well to uninformed people, but how many times have you removed a coffee lid and had it splash on you? It's happened to me a lot, even when I'm being careful. And sure we all know it's hot, but do you expect that it will cause 3rd degree burns like THAT?

Sticking your hand in a woodchipper is a foreseeable, open and obvious risk, which is a defense to a tort so you would not be able to recover. I don't think most people understood or appreciated the extent of the burns a coffee spill could have.

Quote:Second I didn't say, or at least I'm convinced I didn't say because I know better, that 51/49 is the burden.

No I think you did, and you assumed the word "probable" has its ordinary meaning. And you were wrong.

Quote:You said, in essence, that if the da can make up a story that a reasonable person would believe that would constitute a crime, then a person can be arrested. That is not the burden at all. Not even close.

You're wrong. Yes, the burden is a reasonable belief that he committed a crime. The DA gets to present only his side of the story (READ: only the facts favorable to him).

Quote:The fact that a boy is dead, if that is all we had, is certainly compelling. The problem for your side is that we have much more.

HOW is that a problem if the defense isn't allowed to present its case before the grand jury/judge in a probable cause hearing??? It isn't.

Quote:We have zimmermans phone call...

Which the DA doesn't have to present. (But he probably would because it helps his case).

Quote:And his history of phone calls....

Which actually helps the DA's case if anything.

Quote:We have his statement and claim of self defense... We have a witness that corroborates at least a portion of his story and we apparently have physical evidence which supports his story.

Which the DA doesn't have to present.

Quote:Certainly not proof of innocence... But pretty well stretches the bounds of belief to think that someone would call the police and then pull a gun on a kid with skittles minding his own business and shoot him with the police moments away...

Again, the evidence doesn't have to be presented and even if it did there is nothing to contradict the story I told you before.

Quote:That just doesn't pass the smell test.... Which is why those who want to string up Zimmerman introduced or created all of this false evidence against him...

The only "false evidence" was the NBC manipulation of the one 911 tape, which was completely unnecessary to make the case against him.

Quote:You should re-read gates yourself. Most of the "totality" information that you are relying on... Like the supposed utterance if coon,

I'm not relying on that at all.

Quote:the supposed... He's suspicious,

The 911 call well establishes Z thought he was suspicious to any reasonable factfinder.

Quote:he's black...

Not relying on it.

Quote:And the supposed "proof" that it was Martin screaming don't appear to be evidence at all.

Expert testimony that it was Martin screaming is evidence, at least for the purposes of a probable cause hearing, where the evidence standard is relaxed (eg, hearsay is admissible).

Quote:The BIGGEST thing going for Zimmerman is that he called the police and stayed on the phone with them for most of the time....

No it doesn't. It could help establish the necessary intent for the prosecution's case.

Quote:And then apparently stood around waiting for them to arrive after the event.

Because a person ran out of their house and saw him standing over a dead kid.

Quote:It certainly appears that there was a struggle, which you wouldn't normally have if someone pulled a gun on someone from a distance.

Once again, the evidence of the struggle doesn't have to be presented at a probable cause hearing. But it will be brought up at trial, and when it is the prosecution can still establish that the struggle was over when Zimmerman grabbed his gun and someone (according to experts, Martin) was pleading for his life.

Quote:If he had a gun and was itching to use it, why would you get close enough to the person to get punched?

This is stupid. The ellipses and wandering, sometimes incoherent thoughts are one thing, but have you read anything I've been saying at all? You try to debunk one set of facts that no one on here is proffering and act as if it disproves probable cause, which is wrong on so many levels. I've long said I believe the most likely story is Martin threw the first punch, there was a scuffle, and it either ended with Zimmerman pulling out his gun OR it ended and then Zimmerman pulled out his gun; Martin pleaded for his life, and Zimmerman ignored the pleas and committed murder.

Quote:I mean seriously.... Other than the death, what evidence do you have of a crime? Remember... Your opinion isn't evidence. I'm confident you will say "that the kid wasn't doing anything", but that is opinion, not fact, and the witness at the scene, Zimmerman, BEFORE the shooting, said he was acting suspicious.

I've listed the evidence over and over.

1. He shot and killed an unarmed kid--a witness who ran outside immediately after the gunshot saw him standing over Martin.
2. Experts believe to a reasonable scientific certainty the voice screaming for help on the 911 tape wasn't Zimmerman.
3. His statement in the 911 call that he was following Martin and they "always get away" and Martin's girlfriend says Martin called her and said he was scared, which taken together are evidence that Zimmerman was the aggressor.
4. The funeral director says he saw no bruises on the hands of Martin

Present this to a judge in a probable cause hearing and you get your arrest warrant. If you're a judge and you're presented with this listed evidence (and the 4th one isn't really necessary because it's a rebuttal to the affirmative self defense Z is bound to raise at trial), you simply ask yourself if there is a substantial probability Zimmerman committed a crime BASED ONLY ON THESE FACTS. For the ten millionth time, I'm not saying he's guilty. He can present his own evidence at trial to establish self defense. But there's definitely probable cause and a possible murderer is walking around scot free, which quite frankly is f'ked up.

Quote:Besides, counselor.... If your side of the argument is so obvious and mine is so arrogantly misinformed about the law, why hasn't he been arrested yet? Perhaps I'm not so misinformed, and/ or your side isn't so obvious. Or perhaps all of those idiots in Florida and within the justice department are equally misinformed as I am....

Boy... Talk about arrogant

I've explained why I think he hasn't been arrested yet at least a dozen times. Apparently with you it's a complete waste of my time so I'm not going to do it again.
04-10-2012 01:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Max Power Offline
Not Rod Carey
*

Posts: 10,059
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation: 261
I Root For: NIU, Bradley
Location: Peoria
Post: #47
RE: REMINDER: Cons trust juries to decide life or death, but not civil cases or Zimmerman
Libertarians and conservatives agree on economics. Whether or not the religious are trying to convince others, they tend not to budge on their beliefs. The pope and Bible are infallible, why? Because the pope and Bible say they're infallible, and they're infallible. Makes perfect sense.

Many of the old rich white boomers in the Democratic party advocating against their own self interests do so because they think it's the right thing to do, which I think is noble.

The GOP pushes low taxes for everyone, even if it disproportionately pushes for the top 1%. Most GOPers in Congress have taken the "Never raise taxes" pledge. The Bush tax cuts lowered taxes for all taxpayers.

That's what the Buffett rule is for. Let's make it a reality even though it "only" raises $47 billion. How does it keep competition for their spot down?
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2012 02:21 PM by Max Power.)
04-10-2012 02:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bull_In_Exile Offline
Eternal Pessimist
*

Posts: 21,809
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 461
I Root For: The Underdog
Location:
Post: #48
RE: REMINDER: Cons trust juries to decide life or death, but not civil cases or Zimmerman
(04-10-2012 02:21 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Libertarians and conservatives agree on economics. Whether or not the religious are trying to convince others, they tend not to budge on their beliefs. The pope and Bible are infallible, why? Because the pope and Bible say they're infallible, and they're infallible. Makes perfect sense.

Once again to Max Religious=Catholic... (Pope) yet the Pro Life / Anti War / Anti Death penalty Catholic church is really not so..

Quote:That's what the Buffett rule is for. Let's make it a reality even though it "only" raises $47 billion. How does it keep competition for their spot down?

I despise Limbaugh but the tag line "Symbolism over Substance" comes to mind here...
04-10-2012 02:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Max Power Offline
Not Rod Carey
*

Posts: 10,059
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation: 261
I Root For: NIU, Bradley
Location: Peoria
Post: #49
RE: REMINDER: Cons trust juries to decide life or death, but not civil cases or Zimmerman
LOL $47 billion is not mere symbolism, especially when Limbaugh spends a week railing (with good reason) on a $500k party for a government agency in Las Vegas and O'Reilly on $4 shrimp at same.
04-10-2012 02:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #50
RE: REMINDER: Cons trust juries to decide life or death, but not civil cases or Zimmerman
(04-10-2012 02:45 PM)Max Power Wrote:  LOL $47 billion is not mere symbolism, especially when Limbaugh spends a week railing (with good reason) on a $500k party for a government agency in Las Vegas and O'Reilly on $4 shrimp at same.

You'll never see $47 billion from it. What you'll see is capital flight. Actually more capital flight, since it is already going on at current tax rates.

Explain something to me. How is it that the left can complain about the capital flight that is going on now to escape US taxes, but at the same time assume that raising tax rates won't lead to more capital flight?

There's something intellectually dishonest about taking both those positions.
04-10-2012 02:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #51
RE: REMINDER: Cons trust juries to decide life or death, but not civil cases or Zimmerman
(04-10-2012 01:28 PM)Max Power Wrote:  
Quote:Showing the pictures of the injury are equally immaterial.

No it isn't. She had 3rd degree burns and couldn't walk anymore. It's material because people laugh at the $2 million figure (which was reduced by the judge to $600k) without realizing the extent of her damages.
Quoting me out of context doesn't help your case. I'm not talking about damages, I am merely talking about frivolity of lawsuits. Someone else brought up the McDonald's example... I said it wasn't a good one because they DID do something, but apparently you can't even take a concession without arguing about it. The pictures you posted had nothing to do with frivolity/liability... Only damages... Which
Are immaterial until you establish liability.... But I'm confident, having spent a lot of times very close to plaintiffs attorneys, that you don't wait until you've established liability to present the victim.

Quote:
Quote:There are PLENTY of times that people are injured tragically through no fault of anyone. That doesn't make the other examples void. The fact that you have to tell people not to put their hands inside the wood chipper is evidence of a problem. Of course, this is what plaintiffs attorneys do.... They show a burned leg and a rich corporation or a clean cut picture of a kid and prey on the sympathy and jealousy of the jury. Those aren't pertinent facts to guilt or innocence, but that doesn't mean that people like you can't win or lose cases with them.

You seem confused on the elements of a tort (well, a great many things, but primarily this). You're right in that the picture has nothing to do with fault (ie, duty and breach), but that doesn't make it immaterial because it certainly has a lot to do with the final tort element, damages.

I'm sorry, I don't see where I missed what you re saying at all. The extent of the injury is immaterial to the guilt or innocence of the corporation. That's all I said. I never said it wasnt material to the verdict... And even implied that with the right attorney and the right victim, you could win a case without actually having true liability. If you get a sympathetic enough jury, you can get them to award someone millions of dollars for not telling them NOT to try and dry their baby in the clothes dryer.

Quote:Sticking your hand in a woodchipper is a foreseeable, open and obvious risk, which is a defense to a tort so you would not be able to recover. I don't think most people understood or appreciated the extent of the burns a coffee spill could have.

Yet we still have to have that warning label on the equipment... Meaning somebody somewhere sued and won at least that.

Quote:
Quote:Second I didn't say, or at least I'm convinced I didn't say because I know better, that 51/49 is the burden.

No I think you did, and you assumed the word "probable" has its ordinary meaning. And you were wrong.

Great, now you're telling me what I know. I never made a comparison between two outcomes... Which is what 51/49 implies. There are MANY more than two possibilities. In fact, your entire argument is predicated on things that have now been shown to be lies... The "he's suspicious, bes black". The "coon" comment and others... Without those... And given the other theory advanced... That he called the police and kept them informed the whole time... That he was clearly involved in a physical altercation where he doesnt appear to have fared very well, despite being armed.... As I said... And following onto what you claimed... If all we had was a dead unarmed black person, you'd have a case... But we have much more. Taken in its entirety... As the scotus ruled , and I said before you even brought it up... You have an uphill battle. While probable cause doesn't mean 51/49, it certainly derives from a different word than theoretically possible, which seems to be YOUR burden of proof. Once again... The fact that he hasn't been arrested despite your claims that it is blatantly obvious certainly implies you're full of crap on your assumption about the facts and/or the burden to arrest.
Quote:
Quote:You said, in essence, that if the da can make up a story that a reasonable person would believe that would constitute a crime, then a person can be arrested. That is not the burden at all. Not even close.

You're wrong. Yes, the burden is a reasonable belief that he committed a crime. The DA gets to present only his side of the story (READ: only the facts favorable to him).

You conveniently edited the comments where I said he had to show evidence to support his claim. Other than the dead body, what do you have??

More on this later, because we obviously have a difference of opinion on what the evidence shows...

Quote:I've long said I believe the most likely story is Martin threw the first punch, there was a scuffle, and it either ended with Zimmerman pulling out his gun OR it ended and then Zimmerman pulled out his gun; Martin pleaded for his life, and Zimmerman ignored the pleas and committed murder.

If this is the case, then the evidence would easily support it... It seems obvious to me that's not what the actual evidence collected so far suggests.

Quote:I've listed the evidence over and over.

1. He shot and killed an unarmed kid--a witness who ran outside immediately after the gunshot saw him standing over Martin.
Being unarmed doesn't mean you can't kill someone... Or make them fear for their life... And standing over someone you just killed is what one would expect to see.

Quote:2. Experts believe to a reasonable scientific certainty the voice screaming for help on the 911 tape wasn't Zimmerman.
. I don't believe these are prosecution experts, but media volunteers. Thus not facts. Perhaps the experts hired by the prosecution didn't reach the same conclusion... Or perhaps these experts aren't really experts at all, so the prosecution doesn't want to use them.
Quote:3. His statement in the 911 call that he was following Martin and they "always get away" and Martin's girlfriend says Martin called her and said he was scared, which taken together are evidence that Zimmerman was the aggressor.

While I understand that heresay is admissible in a probable cause hearing, that isn't a fact. I asked you for facts. This is opinion
Quote:4. The funeral director says he saw no bruises on the hands of Martin
This I haven't heard. Though I've heard so many things that weren't true that you'll forgive me if I'm skeptical. Zimmerman certainly was bruised. I guess he did that to himself. Again... Simple investigation would prove or disprove this.

Quote:Present this to a judge in a probable cause hearing and you get your arrest warrant.

Your argument assumes that your interpretation of the facts is correct and/or that the prosecution is interested in arresting people rather than arresting criminals. As I've said... You have to present facts. If it were as obvious as you think, he'd be in jail. You're so arrogant that you can't even imagine that your facts... Which you obviously haven't gotten from the source... mIGHT be tainted?? Heck, that's not even an indictment of YOU, yet you can't imagine it??

I don't think I've seen your explanation of why the prosecution isn't following the law and wants Zimmerman to get away with murder... But I won't press it. The fact is, apparently they aren't ready to arrest him, despite what you think is a lay down. I mean, I suppose they're hoping he screws up and gives them evidence to convict him. That certainly crossed my mind a long time ago.
(This post was last modified: 04-10-2012 06:38 PM by Hambone10.)
04-10-2012 06:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.