New Witness...TRAYVON was beating Zimmerman up!

[koshergrl]

Ah, well, you learn something every day.

At least I do...but I have no intention of ever defending myself or anyone else in a court of law, so....

 

[paperview]

And another, for the Wiki Whiners:

Strike for cause Law & Legal Definition

​

"Strike for cause refers to a method of eliminating potential members from the jury panel. This method is adopted in the U.S. to eliminate members of jury. In the U.S., attorneys on either side of a case have infinite potential to strike potential jurors for causal reasons. Thus this method is considered as an appealing method for constituting a panel suited to an attorney's individual interests."


Strike for cause Law & Legal Definition

 

[paperview]

Yup.

I have to weigh in on KG. I find more of her posts contain substance than either of you may believe. And, that's fine to disagree on that.

But, I DO agree that once her emotions are in gear, yeah...they lose substance.

I believe you

I guess the only posts I've seen of hers are those attacking myself or others. Perhaps I'll come across some where she isn't doing that.

Or getting the facts wrong.

That's all I've ever seen.

 

[The Gadfly]

Another day, and another week goes by and despite the lynch mob's rallies, and petitions, and demonstrations, Zimmerman is still afree man. The Feds can't even seem to get a case for hate crime against him.

More than likely, Zimmerman was justified in killing Martin and the authorities just can't figure out how to difuse the situation that will inevitably occur because the lynch mob isn't interested in justice, they onmly want revenge.

That is what concerns a lot of us.

That is precisely the problem. There's already been too much emotion, and not enough thought; too many people forming an inflexible opinion from what snippets of fact they get, incomplete, even distorted or erroneous. It would have been better to let the investigation proceed to its conclusion, first, but some people couldn't wait. Even if the investigation concludes there's been no crime, there's no way to defuse the situation that's built up. This is NOT going to end well; you mark my words, there will be more blood spilled before this is over; the sad part is, that most likely none of it will belong to the media types and so-called "leaders" that whipped it into a frenzy. Sharpton and Jackson won't care; the media won't care; they'll just make more money covering THAT; race-pandering politicians won't care' they'll be re-elected, which is all that matters to them. Votes and money, money and votes, with a little hate and vengeance thrown in, just for spice; welcome to justice, the NEW American way. Anyone remember Reginald Denny?

 

[Againsheila]

One is too many.

True but don't throw the baby out with the wash water.

Ok, that makes no sense.

The second article (from '06) said there were 130; not sure what the current number is, but the authors were discussing the reliability of eye-witness accounts, and used that figure to illustrate that a majority of people we know are innocent have been wrongly convicted of crimes based on eye-witness testimony. And of course, that doesn't mean there have been only 130 people wrongly convicted.

10 eyewitnesses can see the same thing and have a totally different idea of what they saw. That said, their first account of what they saw would have the most weight.

 

[Againsheila]

I am, and that's exactly what you're saying.

First, you try to establish that the actual events don't matter, what matters is your *feelings* about the disjointed and incorrect information you have collected from here, there, and your own imagination..

When you saw that didn't work, you determined that eyewitness testimony, even from multiple sources that agree about what they saw, and in turn with Zimmerman's account, is worthless.

It's all about railroading. The left is great at it.

I think Emma is very one-sided in this discussion - on the side of finding out what really happened, not what she may want to have happened.

Seeing this thread, and that Emma and a few others are doing just that, compared to far more already having an idea in their head on what happened, I am wondering how juries can actually operate effectively when a case is already in the press.

And, the press determines thought for WAY too many.

Thank you.

You bring up a good point ... if this ever does go to trial, how in the world are they going to find an unbiased jury?

In some countries, the press is not given the name (or not allowed to print the name) of a suspect until they're charged. Considering this and other cases where the media and internet have gone nuts, and both parties have been demonized, maybe that's not such a bad idea.

Maybe they can get a jury made up of Amish people, who don't have a tv, newspaper or internet?

 

[Againsheila]

I have no doubt that I could serve on the jury IF Zimmerman ever goes to trial. From day one, I have assumed innocent until proven guilty. I still maintain that I don't know what happened and that the ONLY question is that if Zimmerman's story fits the evidence or not. If he's guilty then we would find that out. If he isn't he would be released. Justice.

I don't think I could. I'm too tempted to vote not guilty just to get Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson, but then again, knowing that will result in a full scale riot, maybe I'd vote guilty....problem is that the vote wouldn't be dependent on the evidence but on threats, etc.
I think that's the way it's gonna be for most jurors, even those who won't admit it. Look at the number from the OJ Simpson trial that said they voted "not guilty" because they felt threatened.

 

[Againsheila]

Another day, and another week goes by and despite the lynch mob's rallies, and petitions, and demonstrations, Zimmerman is still afree man. The Feds can't even seem to get a case for hate crime against him.

More than likely, Zimmerman was justified in killing Martin and the authorities just can't figure out how to difuse the situation that will inevitably occur because the lynch mob isn't interested in justice, they onmly want revenge.

That is what concerns a lot of us.

That is precisely the problem. There's already been too much emotion, and not enough thought; too many people forming an inflexible opinion from what snippets of fact they get, incomplete, even distorted or erroneous. It would have been better to let the investigation proceed to its conclusion, first, but some people couldn't wait. Even if the investigation concludes there's been no crime, there's no way to defuse the situation that's built up. This is NOT going to end well; you mark my words, there will be more blood spilled before this is over; the sad part is, that most likely none of it will belong to the media types and so-called "leaders" that whipped it into a frenzy. Sharpton and Jackson won't care; the media won't care; they'll just make more money covering THAT; race-pandering politicians won't care' they'll be re-elected, which is all that matters to them. Votes and money, money and votes, with a little hate and vengeance thrown in, just for spice; welcome to justice, the NEW American way. Anyone remember Reginald Denny?

But if it didn't build up, then Trayvon's mom couldn't make all that money off of his name....

 

[L.K.Eder]

I think Emma is very one-sided in this discussion - on the side of finding out what really happened, not what she may want to have happened.

Seeing this thread, and that Emma and a few others are doing just that, compared to far more already having an idea in their head on what happened, I am wondering how juries can actually operate effectively when a case is already in the press.

And, the press determines thought for WAY too many.

Thank you.

You bring up a good point ... if this ever does go to trial, how in the world are they going to find an unbiased jury?

In some countries, the press is not given the name (or not allowed to print the name) of a suspect until they're charged. Considering this and other cases where the media and internet have gone nuts, and both parties have been demonized, maybe that's not such a bad idea.

Maybe they can get a jury made up of Amish people, who don't have a tv, newspaper or internet?

i think the amish frown upon jury duty.

as in, they don't do it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have to weigh in on KG. I find more of her posts contain substance than either of you may believe. And, that's fine to disagree on that.

But, I DO agree that once her emotions are in gear, yeah...they lose substance.

I believe you

I guess the only posts I've seen of hers are those attacking myself or others. Perhaps I'll come across some where she isn't doing that.

Or getting the facts wrong.

That's all I've ever seen.

Just because she does not agree with your opinion does not mean she gets the facts wrong
Your opinion is not facts, your opinion is based on race baiting knee jerk bullshit.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have no doubt that I could serve on the jury IF Zimmerman ever goes to trial. From day one, I have assumed innocent until proven guilty. I still maintain that I don't know what happened and that the ONLY question is that if Zimmerman's story fits the evidence or not. If he's guilty then we would find that out. If he isn't he would be released. Justice.

I don't think I could. I'm too tempted to vote not guilty just to get Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson, but then again, knowing that will result in a full scale riot, maybe I'd vote guilty....problem is that the vote wouldn't be dependent on the evidence but on threats, etc.
I think that's the way it's gonna be for most jurors, even those who won't admit it. Look at the number from the OJ Simpson trial that said they voted "not guilty" because they felt threatened.

Yep I think the Jacksons and Sharptons want a lynching.

 

[L.K.Eder]

I believe you

I guess the only posts I've seen of hers are those attacking myself or others. Perhaps I'll come across some where she isn't doing that.

Or getting the facts wrong.

That's all I've ever seen.

Just because she does not agree with your opinion does not mean she gets the facts wrong
Your opinion is not facts, your opinion is based on race baiting knee jerk bullshit.

says the birfer. ha

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Or getting the facts wrong.

That's all I've ever seen.

Just because she does not agree with your opinion does not mean she gets the facts wrong
Your opinion is not facts, your opinion is based on race baiting knee jerk bullshit.

says the birfer. ha

OH a fucking foreigner if it wasn't for America we'd be say sieg heil that's why you're pissed at America. Don't you have some tribute to do for der fuhrer

 

[L.K.Eder]

Just because she does not agree with your opinion does not mean she gets the facts wrong
Your opinion is not facts, your opinion is based on race baiting knee jerk bullshit.

says the birfer. ha

OH a fucking foreigner if it wasn't for America we'd be say sieg heil that's why you're pissed at America. Don't you have some tribute to do for der fuhrer

and now ethnic baiting knee jerk bullshit.

well done, birfer.

 

[koshergrl]

Ethnic baiting?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Uncensored2008]

and now ethnic baiting knee jerk bullshit.

well done, birfer.

Other than trolling, do you have a purpose in this thread?

(Or the forum, for that matter...)

 

[L.K.Eder]

and now ethnic baiting knee jerk bullshit.

well done, birfer.

Other than trolling, do you have a purpose in this thread?

(Or the forum, for that matter...)

yes. thanks for asking.

 

[Uncensored2008]

and now ethnic baiting knee jerk bullshit.

well done, birfer.

Eder thinks she is the Mastur Race - thus she promotes masturbating......

 

[L.K.Eder]

Ethnic baiting?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

well, what would you call it? playing the nazi card because i am german is...?

it certainly was not race baiting.

it definitely was knee jerk bullshit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

yes. thanks for asking.

Would that purpose be charging tolls to cross your bridge?