Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
this just in. The jury stopped everything and said they want to give zimmerman 50 tears for shotting an unarmed kid.
Hey, a fella can dream.
negged!!!!!
I like Sallow. But the good ship "Common Sense" sailed without him.
Dumbass point in a truly stupid thread.
I laughed till my sides hurt.
Not really.
"Common Sense" tells me that a person does not have the right to shoot another person, especially if that person is unarmed and isn't breaking the law.
So when the shooter is the only one around to tell the story, one has to be very careful to make sure that story checks out.
And given the circumstances? It better be a good story.
This just wasn't.
The judge just swore in the prosecutor, it looked like!
She did, she made him swear to something.
Never been done before to my knowledge.
Some shit about to hit the fan, maybe
The prosecution is likely to be attempting to prove that things could not have happened as Zimmerman described. The defense is likely trying to debunk each point the prosecution attempts to make. Their is no doubt on either side as to who shot whom.is there a question of who shot Travon that I am missing???? if not why the fuck are you guys still arguing about DNA?
You laugh but yet NBC is the one that altered the 911 call. Would you trust them???
You guys are hilarious.
Really.
MSNBC didn't alter crap. Unless you call bumping up audio, "altering".
FOX constantly lies about crap..and by lie..I mean really lie.
And as for "altering"?
They take the cake.
The prosecution is likely to be attempting to prove that things could not have happened as Zimmerman described. The defense is likely trying to debunk each point the prosecution attempts to make. Their is no doubt on either side as to who shot whom.is there a question of who shot Travon that I am missing???? if not why the fuck are you guys still arguing about DNA?
From what i saw the prosecutor is doing the defenses job for them.
The judge just swore in the prosecutor, it looked like!
She did, she made him swear to something.
Never been done before to my knowledge.
Some shit about to hit the fan, maybe
I was making lunch, crap! What happened?!?
That's sort of irrelevant.
And not germane to her deposition. Neither is the way she spoke or her appearance.
Her deposition, I am so glad you brought that up.
Why would the states attorney interview a witness who claims to have been on the phone with the victim of a hooting in the home of the parents of said victim? Did you know she specifically said that she didn't want to upset Trayvon's mother and that was why she lied?
I would really suggest you go back to paying Tiddly Winks instead of watching Nancy Grace, you don't know anything about this case, or the law.
This question makes no sense.
Perhaps you should remove the snark.
this just in. The jury stopped everything and said they want to give zimmerman 50 tears for shotting an unarmed kid.
Hey, a fella can dream.
negged!!!!!
possed!!!!!
NO! Zimmerman's credibility is about as solid as yours and that is NIL! NADA! NONE!Grab a basketball and look at how your fingers are splayed on the round surface. Take particular notice of how the fingertips are placed. Also, look at the position of the thumbs. If Martin had grabbed and pounded GZ's head into the ground multiple time as claimed, Martin's thumbs would have been in GZ's eyes, corners of the mouth or around his neck!. So where are the thumb marks on GZ's facial or neck area? And surely, if there was a head slamming at all, Martin would have GZ's DNA all over his fingers and thumbs not to mention under his fingernails. Sallow was right.. the evidence does NOT back Zimmerman's story!
Zimmerman said Martin had his hand over his mouth, want to rewrite your post?
As I said privately, before, I DOUBT that it would rise to the level of a mistrial.
WHY would the defendant want one?
But it COULD be a pretty good ground for an appeal (if there was ever a conviction).
As I said privately, before, I DOUBT that it would rise to the level of a mistrial.
WHY would the defendant want one?
But it COULD be a pretty good ground for an appeal (if there was ever a conviction).
There are usually MANY grounds for appeal.
These aren't two separate incidents.
And going by Zimmerman's recollection of events, that he left his car to walk off a well lit street into a very dark courtyard to get the name of a street in a three street community, just seems highly implausible.
It makes more sense that Zimmerman left his car to pursue Martin (Something he's admitted too), did not break off the chase as he said, caught up with Martin, and initiated the confrontation.
That is where you are wrong, legally they are. Unless the state can prove that Zimmerman never lost sight of Martin then the act of Martin confronting Zimmerman became a separate incident. Since even that useless female who calls herself the girlfriend claims that Martin confronted Zimmerman and then dropped the phone on the wet grass (How can you hear wet grass over a phone anyway?) the state has a problem.
Under what law are they separate incidents? And why does the state have to prove that Zimmerman never lost sight of Martin? He probably did..which is why he chased him into a dark courtyard and frantically looked for him with his flashlight. When he caught up with him, he initiated the encounter.
