Posted on 07/02/2013 3:53:36 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Breaking news.
“She looks like Meatloaf wearing glasses!”
Ha!! I was actually referring to the judge! Corey looks, to quote Jim Bouton: “Like Joe Torre with t-ts!”
I hope that holds true. How in the world can the prosecution discount testimony merely because it’s favorable to Zimmerman, and came from an official?
Because the fix is in.
Pretty convincing disguise, isn’t it?
Yeah, but I get the sickening feeling that whats going to happen here is the prosecution is going to put the Mother on the stand to cry, and the Jury is going to get soft, especially since the Judge has pretty much ruled that no negative info about “baby Trayvon” can come in.
I don’t think they will get GZ on murder 2, but I think they are going to introduce manslaughter and get him on the absurd idea that he “shouldn’t have gotten out of his car”.
Oh, and there will still be riots as the “Celebrations” will turn into riots.
The charge of 2nd degree murder was intended to inflame blacks and then to insure Zimmerman’s acquittal—so that we could have a summer of ‘unrest.’ This has become obvious to me.
That was lurking in the back of my mind. These endless examples of incompetence do seem to be intentional.
Why the objection to the obviously biased judge in an obvious political show trial?
Common practice in any totalitarian nation....Communist China, the old Soviet Union, Communist Vietnam, etc etc.
A corrupt and politically controlled judicial system is s.o.p. in any tin pot dictatorship where rule of law has been overthrown....USA for instance. Where Obama enforces only laws he likes and subverts the Constitution regularly.
Happily, the idiot RINO Repubs and the Dems will pass amnesty for about 30 million undocumented low income Democrat voters, so the Constitution can be safely buried under the yoke of Police State tyranny for maybe 100 years.
“... but drew no immediate objection from the state.”
Were they asleep? They let their own witness testify as to the credibility of the defendant? Then waited to move to strike, so the jury could hear it all again from the judge when he told them to disregard it? Apart from the obviously weak merits of the case, that’s just really awful lawyering. Meanwhile, it worked out well for the defense, but I wonder how they got down that road. I assume it had something to do with why there was no immediate arrest. If so, how in the world did the prosecution not see that coming? That’s worth a look.
I think the prosecution might loose this case, which would be hugh. Do you think so to? If so, your right. But whose really to say?
Ugh.
O’Mara asked that question rather quickly following another question. And the cop answered it immediately.
And the way the press reporting it is wrong. He didn’t say Zimmerman “seemed” to be telling the truth. He said he “believed” Zimmerman was telling the truth.
No WONDER I flunked Math!
Martin was a black teenager. Zimmerman is a “white” Hispanic adult. According to these liberals cowards, Zimmerman would have had to be dead before he thought his life was in danger.
The defense would always make the motion, though they may not believe they are going to get it, they would make the motion.
On appeal, one issue may then be that the motion was improperly denied.
There is no way this judge will take the responsibility for dismissing these charges.
I’m assuming she is an elected judge, but even if not, she will not assume a duty that she can avoid.
“Wanna kiss me, ducky?”
My heart sank when I heard it was an all women jury.
Some of these chicks might not be able to get over the fact that a 17 yr old "child" was killed, no matter the circumstances. Everything that might point at this kid being a punk looking for trouble will fall on deaf ears. Their decision could be based on emotion and sympathy only.
Is the necessary inclusion of manslaughter embedded in Florida law? I was under the impression that there was a specific agreement between prosecution and defense that murder 2 was it in this case - no manslaughter inclusion.
I am nowhere near a lawyer, just trying to understand.
A judge should only instruct on manslaughter if the evidence would be consistent with such a verdict. I really really dislike the notion that a judge should interpret the evidence, but in the case at hand both the defense and prosecutor have effectively stipulated that TM's death was not accidental. If both prosecutor and defendant agree that the evidence is inconsistent with a manslaughter, I can't see any basis whatsoever for the judge to disagree.
Thanks, supercat.
Oh - and I covet your tagline! ;-P
I sadly agree with you. If found not guilty, there will be riots, and who knows where they won’t be. I bet even if found guilty, there will still be riots, but the “hunting” they do will explode all over the country. There will be a lot more incidents of whites and Asians being violently assaulted and sometimes killed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.