Saturday, July 23, 2016 • Afternoon Edition • "Brought to you by the lowest bidder!"

The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

Comics news, comic book reviews, feature articles about comics, interviews with comic creators, plus the greatest comic book and pop culture discussion in the Outhouse forums!

Advertisement

Zimmerman/Martin Trial Thread

Hey you! Reader! Want to be a part of the GREATEST COMIC BOOK AND GEEK COMMUNITY on the web?! Well, they're not accepting new members, but we'll take anyone here, so why not sign up for a free acount? It's fast and it's easy, like your mom! Sign up today! Membership spots are limited!*

*Membership spots not really limited!

User avatar

achilles

Fagorstorm

Postby achilles » Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:12 pm

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:When will we hear from the dog catcher that advised Zimmerman to carry a firearm? That's the most important testimony.


No, the testimony from Mila Kunis is the most important thing to hear. And see.

The Old Doctor

Postby The Old Doctor » Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:12 pm

achilles wrote:
:lol:

Yes, that was a sneaky, evil thing to do! :-D But then I AM evil... :-D

Here though, this is by way of an apology:

[Reveal] Spoiler: Click to Expand
Image


I copied it this time, you sneak... just in case you try to fool me again. Now...
[Reveal] Spoiler: Click to Expand
Image


:smt007 :smt007 :smt007 :smt007 :smt055 :smt049 :smt050

The Old Doctor

Postby The Old Doctor » Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:12 pm

Thunderstorm wrote:
Oh they definitely should. But here, we have way too many to even bother reporting on.


Noticed that. :-( :smt011
User avatar

achilles

Fagorstorm

Postby achilles » Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:20 pm

habitual wrote:
The defense decided to forego the "stand your ground" hearing, it doesn't apply here.

Hab


As I understand it, they don't have to assert that at all for it to be in effect. Regardless, he never gave up a right to self defence, (hi GOSD!).

And things are looking very good for Zimmerman right now. The prosecution has managed to cast doubt on every prosecution witness so far, except for the prosecution witnesses that actually seem to be working for the defence, (hi GOSD!). There's that one guy who noted that immediately after, he saw Zimmerman's injuries, entirely consistent with Zimmerman's story, which he also upheld in its other specifics.

Even the Martin family is busy lying it's collective ass off by now denying that they ever, and I do mean EVER, (in best Y2J voice), tried to make it about race. Good luck selling that one given that it's all on record.
User avatar

achilles

Fagorstorm

Postby achilles » Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:24 pm

habitual wrote:
Discredited is a huge stretch.

There have been inconsistencies in all the stories including Zimmerman's.

I am waiting on the testimony of the homicide detective that wanted Zimmerman arrested for murder the night of the crime.

Hab


Not a big stretch at all. When you get the witnesses to admit they might not have seen or heard what they claimed to have seen and heard, and point out that they originally didn't claim to have seen and heard anything of the sort---I'd say that's discrediting or at least casting that all important "reasonable doubt".
User avatar

achilles

Fagorstorm

Postby achilles » Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:54 pm

Meanwhile, there are apparently threats all over Twitter to kill whites and or hispanics should Zimmerman be acquitted. Along with calls to simply ignore the law and convict him to avoid the inevitable huge race riots should he be acquitted. Which to my mind overstates by just a tiny bit what will happen in that case.

Somehow I don't think Martin plays the same role that say Rodney King did, and even the King riots were local to Los Angeles for the most part. As for people claiming they're going to go out killing whites or hispanics in that case, well, it hardly sounds like they need an excuse, does it---if they're willing to kill, they're willing to kill. Period.
User avatar

S.F. Jude Terror

OMCTO

Postby S.F. Jude Terror » Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:59 pm

achilles wrote:Meanwhile, there are apparently threats all over Twitter to kill whites and or hispanics should Zimmerman be acquitted. Along with calls to simply ignore the law and convict him to avoid the inevitable huge race riots should he be acquitted. Which to my mind overstates by just a tiny bit what will happen in that case.

Somehow I don't think Martin plays the same role that say Rodney King did, and even the King riots were local to Los Angeles for the most part. As for people claiming they're going to go out killing whites or hispanics in that case, well, it hardly sounds like they need an excuse, does it---if they're willing to kill, they're willing to kill. Period.


So your stance is that anyone who would be willing to kill for any reason is just looking for an excuse?
User avatar

achilles

Fagorstorm

Postby achilles » Fri Jun 28, 2013 4:02 pm

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:
So your stance is that anyone who would be willing to kill for any reason is just looking for an excuse?


I don't know, but if you go on Twitter to announce that, it might be you've got issues...
User avatar

Thunderstorm

Not a Kardashian

Postby Thunderstorm » Fri Jun 28, 2013 4:04 pm

achilles wrote:Meanwhile, there are apparently threats all over Twitter to kill whites and or hispanics should Zimmerman be acquitted. Along with calls to simply ignore the law and convict him to avoid the inevitable huge race riots should he be acquitted. Which to my mind overstates by just a tiny bit what will happen in that case.

Somehow I don't think Martin plays the same role that say Rodney King did, and even the King riots were local to Los Angeles for the most part. As for people claiming they're going to go out killing whites or hispanics in that case, well, it hardly sounds like they need an excuse, does it---if they're willing to kill, they're willing to kill. Period.


I think this is inevitable due to slavery. All we can really hope for is that the white people don't decide to defend themselves or complain about this to their spouses in private after they are attacked and/or murdered. The real tragedy would be if one of them said a dirty word. :smt011
User avatar

The Beast

Swedish Pinata of Death

Postby The Beast » Fri Jun 28, 2013 4:04 pm

Cat-Scratch wrote:
It's simple, this hinges on some American law. I'm a Canadian, so from a perspective here, he generated the situation and therefore is guilty. But as said, if the court gives a good argument for that law and withing that law, I'll probably change my mind. :smt102


Cat-Scratch wrote:
OH. Well, Zimmerman is guilty. He admitted he shot the kid. Can't claim self defense when he admitted to having approached the kid first.


Ignorance of the law is not a defence and it isn't grounds for an offence either.

Cat, if I'm neighbourhood watch and I profile you because you're in visiting my gated community, you do not have the right to commit Felony Assault because I'm up in yo biznass and you're butt-hurt over being the victim of racial discrimination.

Ironically enough, after you commit Felony Assault against me because of the chip on your shoulder, I do have the to right pull out my registered handgun and defend myself with lethal force. :wink:
User avatar

The Beast

Swedish Pinata of Death

Postby The Beast » Fri Jun 28, 2013 4:08 pm

Thunderstorm wrote:
I think this is inevitable due to slavery. All we can really hope for is that the white people don't decide to defend themselves or complain about this to their spouses in private after they are attacked and/or murdered. The real tragedy would be if one of them said a dirty word. :smt011


Image
User avatar

Thunderstorm

Not a Kardashian

Postby Thunderstorm » Fri Jun 28, 2013 4:10 pm

Ntikrst wrote:
Image


We put up with this shit, so no arguments there.

Image
User avatar

S.F. Jude Terror

OMCTO

Postby S.F. Jude Terror » Fri Jun 28, 2013 4:17 pm

achilles wrote:
I don't know, but if you go on Twitter to announce that, it might be you've got issues...


So being a killer is okay, as long as you don't announce it on Twitter. Just trying to get it straight.
User avatar

habitual

Silly French Man

Postby habitual » Fri Jun 28, 2013 4:17 pm

achilles wrote:
As I understand it, they don't have to assert that at all for it to be in effect.
Regardless, he never gave up a right to self defence, (hi GOSD!).

And things are looking very good for Zimmerman right now. The prosecution has managed to cast doubt on every prosecution witness so far, except for the prosecution witnesses that actually seem to be working for the defence, (hi GOSD!). There's that one guy who noted that immediately after, he saw Zimmerman's injuries, entirely consistent with Zimmerman's story, which he also upheld in its other specifics.

Even the Martin family is busy lying it's collective ass off by now denying that they ever, and I do mean EVER, (in best Y2J voice), tried to make it about race. Good luck selling that one given that it's all on record.


They entirely do, it's a completely different judge and hearing.

The one thing I don't know at this point is if Zimmerman's perjury case is admissable.

Hab
User avatar

Lord Simian

The Lord of the Monkeys

Postby Lord Simian » Fri Jun 28, 2013 4:24 pm

achilles wrote:
As I understand it, they don't have to assert that at all for it to be in effect.


Well, define what you mean by "in effect"?

As I understand it, and I'm in Florida, so I've been forced to learn, you both may be right about stand your ground. Sorta.

A stand your ground hearing is held to determine if a case applies, and if it does, there IS no criminal trial. It's not something that effects a criminal trial in and of itself, by which I mean, there's no such thing as a "not guilty by reason of stand your ground law.". So, that's what Hab is talking about: they chose to pass on that hearing, which means they went to criminal trial.

Now, where he's mistaken, and your point comes in, is that nobody "waived" anything. The Zimmerman defense team pointed out that, while it is the usual practice to have that hearing pre-trial, nothing in the law specifically REQUIRES it to be held pretrial, so they can still request that motion anytime they want, like say, after the prosecution rests their case, etc.

At least, that's how the local media talking heads and legal experts have been explaining it.

leave a comment with facebook


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: e_galston, FaceBook [Linkcheck], Fysh, Google [Bot], HNutz, John Strange, Liam Moorhart, MSNbot Media, Stephen Day and 41 guests

cron