• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Day 13, Closing Arguments (Thursday 7/11)[W:202]

raindrop said:
Sorry, this you DON'T know. First off you put quatation marks around what someone said, notice I didn't................but he did say:
"he had skittles.............that he didn't even steal".................... Bernie DID say that.
that was the statement that I was commenting on............
Click to expand...

Nope. Here it is:


Originally Posted by raindrop
Please Take note: According to Bernie, if you don't steal skittles, you just couldn't have beat this guy's head in
Click to expand...

Read it slowly. Then read my comment slowly.
 
Re: Day 13, Closing Arguments (Thursday 7/11)

Lutherf said:
OK. So I'm flipping through the channels for a little perspective on the closing and I come across MSNBC where Lawrence O' Donnell has Marcia Clark giving her opinion and she's thinking the prosecution was doing what they needed to do. That kind of begs the question.....if the chick that couldn't get OJ convicted thinks you're doing a good job as a prosecutor is that really a ringing endorsement?
Click to expand...

With all due respect to Ms Clark, I believe what she was trying to say is BdlR did what he could with what he had.

I listened to a number of commentators last night. C'mon admit it friends, he didn't have much to use. In forming my opinions I always try to put myself in their shoes. Again, realize we're all armchair quarterbacking from HINDSIGHT. That stipulation in mind, I'd not have been shouting so much. The one (pardon the redundancy) commentator comment I found most resonating and it was from a woman, "his shouting was not necessary, it was almost disrespectful to the jury". I would agree. I know the tactic BdlR used was an emotional one, in order for the jury to buy what he's selling they have to be ANGRY with GZ. I think where his chosen tactic fell short was he never delivered on his emotional outrage. As many commentators last night said....it was feigned. I would have chosen a much more calm explanation, hitting the strong points and focusing on the tragedy.

I think you'll see a much more fact based closing from Mark O'Mara today. In fact, again, I think you'll see a prosecution type closing from the defense, after seeing a defense type closing from the prosecution.

I know......bizarre.
 
Re: Day 13, Closing Arguments (Thursday 7/11)

This jury has an awesome responsibility. The responsibility you carry on your shoulders is to send a loud and clear message that society will not tolerate an unarmed 17-year-old young man being shot and killed while he's walking home from the store...that vigilantism is wrong...and that law and order demands justice.

It's your son. Watching a football game with a friend -- out to the store for some snacks -- innocently walking home to be with his friend. And suddenly his path crosses with the likes of George Zimmerman. A man who profiled him from jump street. Zimmerman didn't recognize him. Oh, my. He was wearing a hoodie. Oh, my. He was black! Oh, my! He was 'acting weird.' Perhaps talking with his hands on his bluetooth just like you and I do?? It was raining. Trayvon Martin didn't seem to be acting predictably to George Zimmerman. Did I mention he was black?? And he was wearing a hoodie??

And for those reasons alone, George Zimmerman decided to stalk him. His actions, and his actions alone, led to the death of an innocent young man.

Would your son be frightened to find he was being followed in the dark? Would he try to avoid George Zimmerman and get home? Being in a strange neighborhood, could he get turned around in the streets and lose his way? The answer is yes. He could.

And when he ended up close to George Zimmerman? Is it reasonable for him to ask, "Why are you following me??" Are those the words that led to his death??

"Why are you following me?"

Are those the words that struck fear in George Zimmerman's heart? That caused him to "reach for his cell phone," he SAYS. Or would that action..."reaching for his cell phone"...strike fear in your son's heart? Would your son be scared? Would that action alone (reaching into his pocket) cause your son to react to save his own life?

Does that explain everything? Trayvon Martin, an innocent young man walking him from the store, frightened that he was being followed...unable to find the quickest way home in a strange neighborhood...George Zimmerman Vigilante reaching into his pocket for his "cell phone"...

If it were your son!! Would he be allowed to pre-emptively defend himself? Or must he wait until George Zimmerman Vigilante finishes reaching into his pocket, and produces a gun??

George Zimmerman!! Why didn't you just stay in your CAR?? Why didn't you do what every other neighborhood watch volunteer would do? What you were trained to do? Call the police! Wait for the police! Why?? Because, "These ****ing punks always get away."

YOUR son. Walking home from the STORE. A "****ing punk."

Is George Zimmerman devastated because this innocent teen is dead?? That's not what he told Sean Hannity, is it? Nope. He said it must be God's will.

Well, then it's God's will that he's sitting at the defense table on trial for murder in the second degree...

Send a powerful message. Tell every would-be vigilante carrying a gun that it's wrong. That they can't take the law into their own hands. That they cannot target a young man because he's black...wears a hoodie...and walks in the rain.

Find him guilty.
Click to expand...

Saves 2 hours time. Does the job, in my opinion. That's the prosecution's last and best hope for Murder 2.
 
Re: Day 13, Closing Arguments (Thursday 7/11)

Bernie and todays 'State Stud' are doing the 'bad cop/good cop schtick. Today's 'State Stud' will come across to the all women jury some where between an older brother/possible bed-partner/father figure/priest. His demeanor will be silky and quite and calm and imploring.
AC and Brnie are so stupid they actually believe this BS is going to sway the jury from examining the evidence and finding George innocent of all charges.
Note to AC and Bernie and Today's State Stud.
I'm guessing everyone of the female jurors have witnessed the same BS from guys who will say anything to get into a woman's pants.
Good call AC.
 
So George is/was a "training MMA fighter" as Bernie claims. George is going to just stand there and let a punk walk up and sucker-punch him? Any "trained MMA fighter would have only allow the punk get within a certain distance then beat the living crap out of him.
 
year2late said:
Too true.

The coverage on the cable "news" networks has been awful.
Click to expand...

I started this journey using HLN on the television. I'd never watched it before.

I'm now using a live feed as suggested by others. I will never watch HLN again. It's as bad as all the others that have talking heads ranting bull****.
 
MaggieD said:
I started this journey using HLN on the television. I'd never watched it before.

I'm now using a live feed as suggested by others. I will never watch HLN again. It's as bad as all the others that have talking heads ranting bull****.
Click to expand...

I agree - I watched parts of it - vomit . "You are kidding me" was uttered by me in the first hour probably about 5 times. Then it got turned off.:doh
 
MaggieD said:
I started this journey using HLN on the television. I'd never watched it before.

I'm now using a live feed as suggested by others. I will never watch HLN again. It's as bad as all the others that have talking heads ranting bull****.
Click to expand...

I started watchiing HLN too. I've pretty much given it up, it's so bad..
 
MaggieD said:
I started this journey using HLN on the television. I'd never watched it before.

I'm now using a live feed as suggested by others. I will never watch HLN again. It's as bad as all the others that have talking heads ranting bull****.
Click to expand...

Not just talking heads, but so biased....I began wondering early on if HLN was watching the same trial....I've been following on the live feeds in here, and CNN. Hell, even FNC doesn't seem to know how to objectively cover this...Don't they realize I don't want their spin?
 
buck said:
I started watchiing HLN too. I've pretty much given it up, it's so bad..
Click to expand...

We're still watching the trial hours on HLN. The after-court crap we peruse occasionally. It is interesting that the guy who does the show 9-10(?) has had a 12 person jury who rules on a different question pertinent to the case every night. They also do an online poll of the question. EVERY night the poll vs jury conclusion is opposite with VERY similar margins...weird. The only explanation I have is 'identifiable' folks (on TV) are afraid of publicizing their bias...?
 
joko104 said:
I want to go on record that, from the start, I was one of the VERY few - I mean VERY few - who did not instantly go with the media hype and said wait a minute, he shot a guy who was beating his head into concrete... I want to think about this some more first... I didn't give a damn to the race baiting crap. And that's all that ever was. White, black, brown - I have no dog in that fight anyway.

Luckily, as people cooled down and thought past all the media raging crap, others started thinking about what likely REALLY happened. And going 100 times deeper into reasons they think he is not guilty. And in micro detail this has been debated.

I never needed any more than he shot a guy who had slammed him in the face and was pounding his head into concrete. That was good enough reason for me. Why? I'd shoot a guy who was beating my head into concrete if it had come to that point, that's why. Probably multiple times as I can pull a trigger pretty damn fast.

This does not mean I think GZ will walk. I don't know. This is a very pro-prosecution jury and they only need 4.
Click to expand...

I did not know they only need 4 to convict. I always thought the jury had to be unanimous to convict in a criminal trial??
 
Compatibilist said:
I did not know they only need 4 to convict. I always thought the jury had to be unanimous to convict in a criminal trial??
Click to expand...

Joko is wrong about this. It's been pointed out a couple of times.

The Supreme Court visited the issue of jury size and unanimity one final time in 1979. In Burch v Louisiana, the Court found Louisiana's law that allowed criminal convictions on 5 to 1 votes by a six-person jury violated the Sixth Amendment right, incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment, of defendants to a trial by jury. If a jury is to be as small as six, the Court said, the verdict has to be unanimous.
Click to expand...

Jury Size and Unanimity under the 6th and 14th Amendments
 
EEP.........Mark??? A "four minute mile" requires you are above "normal" talent as a runner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom