Zimmerman case should blow up in medias face about ....now

[WorldWatcher]

Assuming you are correct, and it is likely that you are. There are too many what ifs that are assumed by an uninformed public to make a decision either way.

I agree...

.............Which puts me in the unenviable position of disagreeing with those from both sides that think they "know" the answers.




>>>>

 

[code1211]

Here you go, from the bond hearing. Don't mind Sunshine, she thinks all blacks are thieves.

DE LA RIONDA: I mean, he wasn't -- is there any evidence at all that he was breaking into anybody's house or committing any type of crime sir?

GILBREATH: No.

DE LA RIONDA: So he had the perfect right to be walking down the street that evening did he not?

GILBREATH: Yes, sir.

DE LA RIONDA: And isn't it a fact to prove that and you have verified that he actually went to that 7-Eleven store and bought some Skittles and a can of tea? Did he not?

GILBREATH: Yes.

DE LA RIONDA: And there's a video of that?

GILBREATH: Correct.

DE LA RIONDA: And he paid for it. He didn't steal or anything. Is that correct?

GILBREATH: Yes.

DE LA RIONDA: Ok and then he ended up walking back to the community? Is that correct?

GILBREATH: Yes.

Of course, no link for this bullshit.

If this is supposed to be testimony before the Grand Jury, then you have violated the law because Grand Jury proceedings are supposed to be sealed.

Hey, moron? It wasn't a grand jury and it is non-copyrighted material. You are free to continue stating that Martin stole the tea and skittles because he was a black person, despite the evidence to the contrary. We all know you're a racist.

I don't think that has anything to do with this case, does it. Lawyers? Opinion?

I think the case pivots on the question of whether or not Martin attacked Zimmerman.

I don't think there were any witnesses. If there is forensic evidence of an attack and Zimmerman is the only witness still living, this might be a tough case to prove.

Does manslaughter require an intent to kill for a conviction?

 

[Sunshine]

Of course, no link for this bullshit.

If this is supposed to be testimony before the Grand Jury, then you have violated the law because Grand Jury proceedings are supposed to be sealed.

Hey, moron? It wasn't a grand jury and it is non-copyrighted material. You are free to continue stating that Martin stole the tea and skittles because he was a black person, despite the evidence to the contrary. We all know you're a racist.

I don't think that has anything to do with this case, does it. Lawyers? Opinion?

I think the case pivots on the question of whether or not Martin attacked Zimmerman.

I don't think there were any witnesses. If there is forensic evidence of an attack and Zimmerman is the only witness still living, this might be a tough case to prove.

Does manslaughter require an intent to kill for a conviction?

THIS case may turn on how chicken shit the jury is.