quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I believe that the Attorney General and others are keeping this case alive - because its preferable to the alternative.
By doing so they

a). Motivate their voters
b). Distract media attention from the IRS, Benghazi, EPA, Detroit, and other scandals.

The democrats prior to this had a serious excitement gap. This is ginning up support in their minority communities. And democrats usually lose the white vote, so the odds are that it will not cost them much among their core constitutencies, of gay, union, jewish, hispanic etc.

I think you're partially correct, but I also strongly suspect, and this suspicion gets stronger every day, that the main impetus for Obama/Holder is Gun control. Everything else is just an added bonus.
Remember, every calamity is also an opportunity.

Everything else makes it easier to get the things he wants, like gun control, Martin? A martyr to the cause, not of equality but of liberalism.

quote:

The idea that jury verdict ends the matter isn't true

quote:

He attacked an armed man, big mistake

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

The idea that jury verdict ends the matter isn't true

If the matter is of George's innocence, it did. If the matter is something else then it is something else.

It's amazing how simple things really are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

He attacked an armed man, big mistake

According to Z, the lone eye witness.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

He attacked an armed man, big mistake

According to Z, the lone eye witness.

He attacked Zimmerman supported by the evidence and Zimmerman was armed .
You seem to forget that the closest thing to an eye witness saw Martin beating him BEFORE being shot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

He attacked an armed man, big mistake

According to Z, the lone eye witness.

He attacked Zimmerman supported by the evidence and Zimmerman was armed .
You seem to forget that the closest thing to an eye witness saw Martin beating him BEFORE being shot.

That's funny, since no evidence of that had been entered, and every time the Defense tried to suggest it, the Judge sustained the objection.

Again, the only thing that matters is one simple thing:

IF George Zimmerman had offered his neighbor a ride home out of the rain that night, none of this would have happened.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

IF George Zimmerman had offered his neighbor a ride home out of the rain that night, none of this would have happened.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

You seem to forget that the closest thing to an eye witness saw Martin beating him BEFORE being shot.

That's funny, since no evidence of that had been entered, and every time the Defense tried to suggest it, the Judge sustained the objection.

Again, the only thing that matters is one simple thing:

IF George Zimmerman had offered his neighbor a ride home out of the rain that night, none of this would have happened.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

He attacked an armed man, big mistake

According to Z, the lone eye witness.

He attacked Zimmerman supported by the evidence and Zimmerman was armed .
You seem to forget that the closest thing to an eye witness saw Martin beating him BEFORE being shot.

That's funny, since no evidence of that had been entered, and every time the Defense tried to suggest it, the Judge sustained the objection.

Again, the only thing that matters is one simple thing:

IF George Zimmerman had offered his neighbor a ride home out of the rain that night, none of this would have happened.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

I really dislike BamaD's term "the closest thing to an eyewitness." The guy WAS an eyewitness, but his vision was not good due to the rain and the darkness.

The evidence was presented in testimony, and the prosecution did not object (and would have been out of order in suppressing an eyewitness' testimony), and there was no objection for the judge to sustain.

Had Martin been in Cleveland at the time, none of this would have happened either. There were numerous things which happened, under the control of each, that led to the fatal shooting. Picking out only those that Zimmerman did is one-sided.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

He attacked an armed man, big mistake

According to Z, the lone eye witness.

He attacked Zimmerman supported by the evidence and Zimmerman was armed .
You seem to forget that the closest thing to an eye witness saw Martin beating him BEFORE being shot.

That's funny, since no evidence of that had been entered, and every time the Defense tried to suggest it, the Judge sustained the objection.

Again, the only thing that matters is one simple thing:

IF George Zimmerman had offered his neighbor a ride home out of the rain that night, none of this would have happened.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

You seem to forget that the closest thing to an eye witness saw Martin beating him BEFORE being shot.

That's funny, since no evidence of that had been entered, and every time the Defense tried to suggest it, the Judge sustained the objection.

Again, the only thing that matters is one simple thing:

IF George Zimmerman had offered his neighbor a ride home out of the rain that night, none of this would have happened.

I really dislike BamaD's term "the closest thing to an eyewitness." The guy WAS an eyewitness, but his vision was not good due to the rain and the darkness.

The evidence was presented in testimony, and the prosecution did not object (and would have been out of order in suppressing an eyewitness' testimony), and there was no objection for the judge to sustain.

Had Martin been in Cleveland at the time, none of this would have happened either. There were numerous things which happened, under the control of each, that led to the fatal shooting. Picking out only those that Zimmerman did is one-sided.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

I really dislike BamaD's term "the closest thing to an eyewitness." The guy WAS an eyewitness, but his vision was not good due to the rain and the darkness.

The evidence was presented in testimony, and the prosecution did not object (and would have been out of order in suppressing an eyewitness' testimony), and there was no objection for the judge to sustain.

Had Martin been in Cleveland at the time, none of this would have happened either. There were numerous things which happened, under the control of each, that led to the fatal shooting. Picking out only those that Zimmerman did is one-sided.

I think that may be because; from all the testimony offered at trial, NO ONE was actually looking at the precise moment of the shot.

The eyewitness' vision not being good is also a factor but, having admitted that, openly, he kind of boosted his own credibility so that when he said "I definitely saw ..." (or whatever the quote is), the jury took that on face value.



Drive faster,



Mr. Magoo

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377 (1922).

I defer, of course, to the Supreme Court on the letter of the law.

In terms of its spirit, though, the sudden "discovery" that Zimmerman may have violated federal civil rights law honestly does strike me as an instance of "If at first you don't convict, try, try again" (to borrow from Robert Matz).

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377 (1922).

I defer, of course, to the Supreme Court on the letter of the law.

In terms of its spirit, though, the sudden "discovery" that Zimmerman may have violated federal civil rights law honestly does strike me as an instance of "If at first you don't convict, try, try again" (to borrow from Robert Matz).

Kinda like the civil prosecution of oj.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

It was no sudden discovery.