It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Zimmerman Trial

page: 267
25
<< 264  265  266    268  269  270 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


My mistake. He actually said looking at the houses, good call. Still counts, a stranger looking around at houses would still be approached the same way. See if they need help finding a house or something, see what they are doing here. If they can't give me a good reason, I will tell them to leave the neighborhood, and follow them to the outlet road to make sure they do.

Transcript
edit on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:37:00 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I hope they come up with a verdict soon because the heavy trolling is going to get ugly in here.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
I get the feeling that many people here have never been a juror.

I was called once. Didn't get picked. Now I am exempt due to medical issues.

I keep going back to thinking how really PISSED OFF the jury is going to be when they go home and get to hear all the stuff we have been hearing but that they weren't allowed to. Like the prosecution keep saying 'scared child alone in the dark' ... but in fact Martin was a self professed thug who flipped off the camera and posted pictures of himself whipping a gun around and getting into street fights and doing drugs ...

Man .. I'd be ticked ...
(* scared little child alone in the dark .... BAAAH
)



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


so who wants to make a wager?

I'm calling it for end of day. 2-3 hours-ish



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   
MSNBC's legal analyst just stated that she believes the verdict will be "for the defense". Interesting.....

A guest "prosecutor" just stated there was a small chance for manslaughter, but the prosecution never really got into the manslaughter aspect much, so he leans towards a verdict "for the defense" as well, with a small chance for manslaughter.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by InstantRemedy

Originally posted by roadgravel
I get the feeling that many people here have never been a juror.

Obviously. I have the same feeling that the vast majoriy here have never been in court at all. But what is your point if I may ask?


Some people seem shocked at times as the way the law is interpreted and executed. What the rules are, etc.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Actually ... Zimmerman said BOTH .. in different testimonies he said 'IN' and he said "AT".
They mean two different things.... but he said both of them.
Looking in houses .... and looking at houses ....



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
Hopefully the jury will have a little more common sense, than the one that is shown around here


Vigilante justice is not acceptable.


Isn't vigilante justice of that which is done after the fact and not during? If that is not the case than every time an officer has fire on a person for the threat rather than the action would that not be considered the same?



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
Hopefully the jury will have a little more common sense, than the one that is shown around here


Vigilante justice is not acceptable.


Yet what your asking for is the same thing...



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by bbracken677
MSNBC's legal analyst just stated that she believes the verdict will be "for the defense".

I"m sure that's really sour up Mika Brzezinski next week. She puckers up like a lemon and gets
really snitty when things don't go the way she wants. It's kind of entertaining to watch.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028

so who wants to make a wager?

I'm calling it for end of day. 2-3 hours-ish


I think it'll be over relatively quickly as well. I wouldn't be surprised if it the verdict comes in late today, either.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028
so who wants to make a wager?
I'm calling it for end of day. 2-3 hours-ish


I was thinking Sunday. They have to at least look like they reviewed the evidence.
(then again ... there wasn't any evidence to review ... was there?)

Not that they have any control over it, but I don't know if the court would want a late Friday afternoon verdict coming in. They are on edge down there in Florida with all the 'riot talk' stuff going on.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Thanks, I thought that I might have just made an assumption. Looking at houses, looking in windows, could very well be construed either way.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Graphic on the WFTV live stream on the jury makeup:


Only six jurors required because this is not a capitol case.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


Being a citizen of the united states empowers you to do that. Being a neighborhood watch does not disempower you to do that. Is it really that hard to understand that?



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by muse7
 


My mistake. He actually said looking at the houses, good call. Still counts, a stranger looking around at houses would still be approached the same way. See if they need help finding a house or something, see what they are doing here. If they can't give me a good reason, I will tell them to leave the neighborhood, and follow them to the outlet road to make sure they do.

Transcript
edit on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:37:00 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)


Is it illegal to walk around a neighborhood? Even if it is one you don't live in?


It's so ironic that people keep saying that Zimmerman had every right to follow Trayvon...but it seems like you don't think Trayvon had the right to walk around the neighborhood. Why is that?



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by firemonkey
reply to post by TDawgRex
 



Felonious assault is a felony and as such, a person can be charged with the crime.

Not to sound cold, but since Treyvon is deceased…what would he be charged with?


Innocent until proven guilty?

You can't claim Trayvon was commiting a felony against Zimmerman if he has never been convicted of it.


But trying a dead man is a waste of time.

That's why Zimmerman is on trial.



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by firemonkey
 


He did not have a right if he did not live there. Zimmerman did not know he was staying there. Walking around was not Martin's crime. Assault and battery was. That is where he went wrong.

People do not have a right to be here without reason, unless they live here.
edit on Fri, 12 Jul 2013 13:47:01 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
Hopefully the jury will have a little more common sense, than the one that is shown around here


Vigilante justice is not acceptable.


But I guess your form of vigilante justice is acceptable?

Double standards maybe?



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 264  265  266    268  269  270 >>

log in

join