I tried not to laugh until the detective said, "You got me!" Sounds like a seven-year old writing a short story.
And I really can't agree that Rachel Jaentel's testimony was a "good day for the defense." She might not have made a "star" witness, but I found her testimony compelling. On a personal level I simply adore her. Her undiluted disdain and contempt for the defense lawyers was refreshing, almost exhilarating. She held up quite well under their badgering. Remember this is a young person who lost one of her best friends the night of the shooting. Trayvon's family, Rachel, his friends; these are, and Trayvon was, just ordinary people living their lives. Martin was killed by a mental deficient high on amphetamines and a sense of power and superiority.
Why so much love and support for this cold-blooded, although deluded, murderer?
Worst possible day for the defense? Clearly letting Zimmerman testify. His story would crumple up like an aluminum can under cross-examination. Of course, if he wasn't lying, he could take the stand with the light of truth shining around him and the power of justice sustaining and protecting him from all vicious and poisonous darts and arrows.
Day eight of testimony in the trial began with a morning hearing in which Judge Debra Nelson ruled information about Zimmerman's studies and unsuccessful application for a police job in Virginia was admissible. Prosecutors called a military prosecutor who taught a criminal procedure class at Seminole State College in which Zimmerman earned an A.
"He was probably one of the better students in the class," said Alexis Francisco Carter, an officer in the U.S. military JAG corps.
Yeah, that was the class in which he learned all about Stand Your Ground laws, which he later denied knowing anything about.
Because it's of course unheard of for a student to learn something as part of a class, and then quickly forget it when the academic term ends.
I wonder why Stand Your Ground laws are even considered relevant in this case. The defense is not invoking SYG, because even with a duty to retreat, one is not held to that duty when retreat is impossible--such as when one is on one's back with his adversary on top of him.
And I should probably acknowledge that the quality of people so desperate for a conviction is such that I am as a matter of course tempted to take the opposite side.
You're probably right, Kurt. He totally forgot what he learned in that class and never heard SYG mentioned on TV or the internet.
My point is simply that testimony that he was once in the past (I didn't catch when the class was) conversant with the law is not proof that he remained so when asked by the police. Besides, I'm still puzzled about the supposed relevance of SYG, since the defense has not invoked that.
You said you were undecided, but it sure seems you're leaning towards believing in Zimmerman.
I am very much undecided as to Zimmerman's guilt or innocence. That means, of course, that I am not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty. That being the case, I am morally obligated to support his acquittal, unless and until the prosecution manages to remove all reasonable doubt. So far, they have not come close.
If a gun control advocate said such an incredible thing . . .
I don't follow you. To what "incredible thing" do you refer?
Oh, Kurt, you and your moral obligations. I'm still thinking about your other moral obligation to use the [sic] notation as often as possible.
In this discussion, since you're not a juror, you are not morally obligated to support acquittal because of the prosecution's case. You're morally required to support it because you're a biased, closed-minded gun-rights fanatic who blindly supports Zimmerman but won't admit it.
I realize that you do not agree about the absolute need to regulate one's own behavior within the bounds of an unshakable moral code. For that I pity you.
In this discussion, since you're not a juror, you are not morally obligated to support acquittal because of the prosecution's case.
Wrong. If I were to wish for life in prison for someone about whose guilt I have quite reasonable doubt, I would be siding with evil, and thus deserving of a slow, excruciating death, without a shred of dignity.
By the way, does anyone believe that if Zimmerman is convicted, that the sentence will not be, in practical terms, a death sentence? Given the black incarceration rate, coupled with the intense, and quite successful, efforts of the race hustlers to turn this into a racial issue, I have trouble understanding how anyone would expect him to live long in prison.
Actually, I think he'll be at considerable risk if acquitted, too, but at least he would have the means to defend himself. I would advise him to get all the training he could afford, and perhaps some higher end firepower than a Kel-Tec.
Kurt, you're saying you're "very far from convinced" that there exists a person who is "a biased, closed-minded gun-rights fanatic who blindly supports Zimmerman?"
Does you moral code allow such lying bullshit as that all in the name of arguing for your rights?
About the death sentence, I agree. That is a problem.
Kurt, you're saying you're "very far from convinced" that there exists a person who is "a biased, closed-minded gun-rights fanatic who blindly supports Zimmerman?"
With or without any opinion regarding George Zimmerman (which is why I didn't quote the reference to him), I believe that the entire concept of "fanaticism" in support of rights is a nonsensical one. Were abolitionists "anti-slavery fanatics"? Is Nelson Mandela an "anti-apartheid fanatic"?
Does you moral code allow such lying bullshit as that all in the name of . . .
I'll continue to leave the "lying bullshit" in furtherance of an agenda to the forcible citizen disarmament mob. They, after all, are the ones whose agenda depends on lies.
"Of course, if he wasn't lying, he could take the stand with the light of truth shining around him and the power of justice sustaining and protecting him from all vicious and poisonous darts and arrows."
Thankfully, in this country, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. As for those mean old attorneys picking on her, keep in mind that a man's life is being determined. I'll bet that the prosecuting attorney will be just as demanding of any defense witnesses.
I tried not to laugh until the detective said, "You got me!" Sounds like a seven-year old writing a short story.
ReplyDeleteAnd I really can't agree that Rachel Jaentel's testimony was a "good day for the defense." She might not have made a "star" witness, but I found her testimony compelling. On a personal level I simply adore her. Her undiluted disdain and contempt for the defense lawyers was refreshing, almost exhilarating. She held up quite well under their badgering. Remember this is a young person who lost one of her best friends the night of the shooting. Trayvon's family, Rachel, his friends; these are, and Trayvon was, just ordinary people living their lives. Martin was killed by a mental deficient high on amphetamines and a sense of power and superiority.
Why so much love and support for this cold-blooded, although deluded, murderer?
Worst possible day for the defense? Clearly letting Zimmerman testify. His story would crumple up like an aluminum can under cross-examination. Of course, if he wasn't lying, he could take the stand with the light of truth shining around him and the power of justice sustaining and protecting him from all vicious and poisonous darts and arrows.
Wow, thanks for that take on the Rachel testimony. That wasn't my impression, but I'm glad to here another take on it.
DeleteUh huh. She comes off as a sullen teenager who can't speak respectfully to any adult who doesn't give her exactly what she wants.
DeleteHere's good news for Jeante, the intellectual leader of the "imprison Zimmerman" mob--she's not the only one who can't read cursive ;-).
DeleteAnd even more good news for the prosecution--the judge allowed them to prove that Zimmerman was a good student:
Day eight of testimony in the trial began with a morning hearing in which Judge Debra Nelson ruled information about Zimmerman's studies and unsuccessful application for a police job in Virginia was admissible. Prosecutors called a military prosecutor who taught a criminal procedure class at Seminole State College in which Zimmerman earned an A.
"He was probably one of the better students in the class," said Alexis Francisco Carter, an officer in the U.S. military JAG corps.
Yeah, that was the class in which he learned all about Stand Your Ground laws, which he later denied knowing anything about.
DeleteYeah, that was the class in which he learned all about Stand Your Ground laws, which he later denied knowing anything about.
DeleteBecause it's of course unheard of for a student to learn something as part of a class, and then quickly forget it when the academic term ends.
I wonder why Stand Your Ground laws are even considered relevant in this case. The defense is not invoking SYG, because even with a duty to retreat, one is not held to that duty when retreat is impossible--such as when one is on one's back with his adversary on top of him.
You're probably right, Kurt. He totally forgot what he learned in that class and never heard SYG mentioned on TV or the internet.
DeleteYou said you were undecided, but it sure seems you're leaning towards believing in Zimmerman.
If a gun control advocate said such an incredible thing, would you defend them too, I mean in all fairness.
And I should probably acknowledge that the quality of people so desperate for a conviction is such that I am as a matter of course tempted to take the opposite side.
DeleteYou're probably right, Kurt. He totally forgot what he learned in that class and never heard SYG mentioned on TV or the internet.
DeleteMy point is simply that testimony that he was once in the past (I didn't catch when the class was) conversant with the law is not proof that he remained so when asked by the police. Besides, I'm still puzzled about the supposed relevance of SYG, since the defense has not invoked that.
You said you were undecided, but it sure seems you're leaning towards believing in Zimmerman.
I am very much undecided as to Zimmerman's guilt or innocence. That means, of course, that I am not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty. That being the case, I am morally obligated to support his acquittal, unless and until the prosecution manages to remove all reasonable doubt. So far, they have not come close.
If a gun control advocate said such an incredible thing . . .
I don't follow you. To what "incredible thing" do you refer?
Oh, Kurt, you and your moral obligations. I'm still thinking about your other moral obligation to use the [sic] notation as often as possible.
DeleteIn this discussion, since you're not a juror, you are not morally obligated to support acquittal because of the prosecution's case. You're morally required to support it because you're a biased, closed-minded gun-rights fanatic who blindly supports Zimmerman but won't admit it.
Oh, Kurt, you and your moral obligations.
DeleteI realize that you do not agree about the absolute need to regulate one's own behavior within the bounds of an unshakable moral code. For that I pity you.
In this discussion, since you're not a juror, you are not morally obligated to support acquittal because of the prosecution's case.
Wrong. If I were to wish for life in prison for someone about whose guilt I have quite reasonable doubt, I would be siding with evil, and thus deserving of a slow, excruciating death, without a shred of dignity.
. . . you're a biased, closed-minded gun-rights fanatic . . .
That, of course, is precisely what I am not. I am, in fact, very far from convinced that such a person even exists, anywhere.
By the way, does anyone believe that if Zimmerman is convicted, that the sentence will not be, in practical terms, a death sentence? Given the black incarceration rate, coupled with the intense, and quite successful, efforts of the race hustlers to turn this into a racial issue, I have trouble understanding how anyone would expect him to live long in prison.
DeleteActually, I think he'll be at considerable risk if acquitted, too, but at least he would have the means to defend himself. I would advise him to get all the training he could afford, and perhaps some higher end firepower than a Kel-Tec.
Kurt, you're saying you're "very far from convinced" that there exists a person who is "a biased, closed-minded gun-rights fanatic who blindly supports Zimmerman?"
DeleteDoes you moral code allow such lying bullshit as that all in the name of arguing for your rights?
About the death sentence, I agree. That is a problem.
Kurt, you're saying you're "very far from convinced" that there exists a person who is "a biased, closed-minded gun-rights fanatic who blindly supports Zimmerman?"
DeleteWith or without any opinion regarding George Zimmerman (which is why I didn't quote the reference to him), I believe that the entire concept of "fanaticism" in support of rights is a nonsensical one. Were abolitionists "anti-slavery fanatics"? Is Nelson Mandela an "anti-apartheid fanatic"?
Does you moral code allow such lying bullshit as that all in the name of . . .
I'll continue to leave the "lying bullshit" in furtherance of an agenda to the forcible citizen disarmament mob. They, after all, are the ones whose agenda depends on lies.
"Of course, if he wasn't lying, he could take the stand with the light of truth shining around him and the power of justice sustaining and protecting him from all vicious and poisonous darts and arrows."
ReplyDeleteThankfully, in this country, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. As for those mean old attorneys picking on her, keep in mind that a man's life is being determined. I'll bet that the prosecuting attorney will be just as demanding of any defense witnesses.