(07-11-2013, 05:19 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]Racist.
I wonder if West is a sexist pig. His response to the 3
rd degree possibility was, paraphrasing, "oh my God, is the court really going to give this any consideration"? He's come across several times like he's lecturing the judge. Pig.
Kansas City is apparently thinking he's going to get off...
KCPD CHIEF BLOG:
Civil responsibility in anticipation of verdict
Closing arguments are taking place today in the trial of George Zimmerman, a Florida man accused of killing Trayvon Martin. A jury soon will decide Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence. The racially charged case has brought up a lot of emotions across the nation, and some speculate the verdict could cause civil unrest.
Kansas City is largely a community of good, law-abiding people, and we are confident people will react to the verdict as responsible citizens and respect the criminal justice process, just as we do. However, you can absolutely agree or disagree with whatever the jury decides and make your thoughts known. The U.S. Constitution guarantees all citizens the right to voice their opinion and peaceably assemble, and we will support everyone’s right to do so. But disagreement with any verdict in the judicial process does not give anyone the right to ignore the law and compromise the safety of others or harm their property.
I ask all members of the community to respect each other. Respect one’s right to voice an opinion, but also respect another’s right to be safe. I also ask everyone to work together to quell any disturbances that may arise. I know the Zimmerman case is an emotional topic, but we can’t let emotions bring discredit to Kansas City. Everyone is responsible for keeping their behavior in check, and if you see someone who isn't, try to help them redirect their feelings in an appropriate way. If that doesn’t work, call us.
You can continue to read the blog post at:
http://kcpdchief.blogspot.com/2013/07/ci...2B9%2Bnews
Sounds to me like they feel anxious, like they feel the verdict is going to affect your 'hood in a negative way regardless of what it is.
(07-11-2013, 06:27 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
Sounds to me like they feel anxious, like they feel the verdict is going to affect your 'hood in a negative way regardless of what it is.
I agree. I think something is going to happen...no matter what that jury says.
(07-11-2013, 03:58 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2013, 02:00 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Case law supports the consideration of lesser charges at this time. An appeal may be attempted; it will fail.
Look who's a legal expert all of a sudden.
It doesn't take a legal expert to know that the prosecution and defense can ask for lesser charges to be considered by the court after their cases rest, Jim. Happens all the time. Common sense.
You're off base.
(07-11-2013, 03:58 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]BTW, it's also why I said "if allowed" in my original post.
No, Jim. You said this:
"The defense is likely already writing the appeal...allowing additional charges to be considered at the end of the trial is likely a violation of the defendants due process."
I read it to mean considered by the court. Maybe you meant the jury? If that's what you meant, I agree with your statement in regards to the specific Murder 3 charge request only. The judge denied that inclusion, so it's not an issue - appellate or otherwise.
(07-11-2013, 05:16 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]As strident as the prosecutor's voice is, I thought he did a pretty good job with his closing argument (from what I heard of it).
I just watched the youtube videos.
I think de la Rionda did a fine job with his presentation, but it wasn't enough.
He attacked Zimmerman's credibility by pointing out improbabilities in Zimmerman's version of events, to stress that Zimmerman's self defense claim is doubtful.
It's not a good sign for the prosecution to be arguing for reasonable doubt; that's usually what the defense is pushing.
I don't think the state met the burden of proof for Murder 2 with their "depraved mind" arguments.
I do think that the state proved that Zimmerman "profiled" Trayvon as a criminal; to me they did, at least. I personally didn't get any racial inferences if that's what de la Rionda was implicating. But, profiling is not illegal and doesn't, on its own, equate to depraved mind and intent to kill.
Based on the trial so far, I expect the defense's closing argument to be very tight.
Does the state still have a hope for a Manslaughter conviction? IDK.
Never can tell how the jurors are viewing the evidence and arguments.
HotD, my entire post was referring to the attempted 3rd degree inclusion that was sprung at the beginning of the day. That is why I included the ETA that I was referring to it.
I posted that prior to the judge not allowing it.
Stop trying to imply that I am somehow ignorant or otherwise unintelligent. I'd like to think you know better, but from your commentary recently I'm not sure.
(07-11-2013, 08:49 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]HotD, my entire post was referring to the attempted 3rd degree inclusion that was sprung at the beginning of the day. That is why I included the ETA that I was referring to it.
I posted that prior to the judge not allowing it.
Stop trying to imply that I am somehow ignorant or otherwise unintelligent. I'd like to think you know better, but from your commentary recently I'm not sure.
West was objecting to the court even considering the prosecution request for that (ridiculous) lesser charge, not only the actual lesser charge itself.
That's what it seemed to me your comment was relating to; it read that way. Now I see how your implication was allowing it for "jury consideration". And, I agree.
Considering the request was exactly what the judge should have done according to law; denying it was as well - IMO.
I made a comment to your comment. There was no implication that you are ignorant or otherwise unintelligent.
Know this, however, I will post as I see fit. If I have something to say about a poster seriously, I'm typically quite direct. Like this: I think you are very defensive, Jim. Since it's a drag dealing with that repeatedly, I'll see fit to keep that in mind before posting comments to your posts moving forward.
(07-11-2013, 08:49 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]HotD, my entire post was referring to the attempted 3rd degree inclusion that was sprung at the beginning of the day. That is why I included the ETA that I was referring to it.
I posted that prior to the judge not allowing it.
Stop trying to imply that I am somehow ignorant or otherwise unintelligent. I'd like to think you know better, but from your commentary recently I'm not sure.
As a bystander, I can clearly see where both you and HotD are misunderstanding each other's posts ( although you showed your testy side when you made that "legal expert" comment).
Still, you're both right and I love a good disagreement so carry on!!!!
(07-11-2013, 08:44 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Never can tell how the jurors are viewing the evidence and arguments.
I will say this regarding the jurors.
They're all women.
Most of the supporters for T here in Mock have been women, while the majority of men believe GZ could walk.
That should bode well for a conviction of some sort (most likely manslaughter).
(07-11-2013, 09:20 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2013, 08:44 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Never can tell how the jurors are viewing the evidence and arguments.
I will say this regarding the jurors.
They're all women.
Most of the supporters for T here in Mock have been women, while the majority of men believe GZ could walk.
That should bode well for a conviction of some sort (most likely manslaughter).
IDK, MS. Maybe.
Remember, the prosecution wanted two of the women struck for cause in final jury selection. Judge Nelson denied their "cause" arguments. This is the jury that the defense wanted; I think the defense strategy has been good and O'Mara seems to know what he's doing.
Btw, I've always thought Zimmerman could walk (whether he should walk, I was undecided). As the trial progressed, the likelihood of walking increased in my mind. Tiki is another woman who appears to think acquittal is a possibility, based on her opinions shared in posts. Same with LyToMe and Cracker...
Not all of the women posters here feel the same way about whether Zimmerman could/should walk. So, who knows with the all female jury.
Deliberations should be getting underway tomorrow. We'll know soon enough.
(07-11-2013, 09:20 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2013, 08:44 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Never can tell how the jurors are viewing the evidence and arguments.
I will say this regarding the jurors.
They're all women.
Most of the supporters for T here in Mock have been women, while the majority of men believe GZ could walk.
So women support T while men don't support G but they think he might walk? What the fuck??? You're stupid. I don't "support" T, I think G might walk even though he potentially chased T around and God knows what happened during the early part of their interaction.
You support G like a fucking jock strap, MS. Christ in a crockpot, you're dense.
(07-11-2013, 09:06 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]I made a comment to your comment. There was no implication that you are ignorant or otherwise unintelligent.
Know this, however, I will post as I see fit. If I have something to say about a poster seriously, I'm typically quite direct. Like this: I think you are very defensive, Jim. Since it's a drag dealing with that repeatedly, I'll see fit to keep that in mind before posting comments to your posts moving forward.
Okay, I guess saying I was 'off base' or asserting definitively that an appeal will fail isn't trying to convey that I don't know what I am talking about. Fair enough.
And if by defensive you mean I stand by my convictions and will doggedly pursue them, then yes I am. I see you do the same thing here sometimes... but I've never thought you were defensive. Just thought you were standing by your argument.
Ironically I post as I see fit as well, yet that causes you some sort of angst because you don't like what or how I post. I'm sorry that it is such a drag for you to deal with my opinions, arguments, or debate points repeatedly.
But it's your forum... I'll refrain from sharing them in your threads moving forward.
Well, it's a good thing you're not defensive, Jim.
I have no angst with your posts; sometimes I disagree with them or make a comment. That's it.
I meant what I said. I see fit to consider your reactions when crafting comments to your posts moving forward; I think this kind of back and forth is a drag.
I don't tell people to "stop" nor have I accused them of implying that I'm ignorant or unintelligent when they simply comment or disagree with me; you or anyone else.
This is LC's forum, not mine. I post in it and I moderate it. I've never had to take any moderator actions against you or anyone else. We're fellow posters in this exchange.
Everyone posts as they see fit here, within the board's guidelines. I hope you continue to post in the crime forum, Jim. I don't think this is any big deal. But it's, of course, entirely up to you.
(07-11-2013, 09:57 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2013, 09:06 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]I made a comment to your comment. There was no implication that you are ignorant or otherwise unintelligent.
Know this, however, I will post as I see fit. If I have something to say about a poster seriously, I'm typically quite direct. Like this: I think you are very defensive, Jim. Since it's a drag dealing with that repeatedly, I'll see fit to keep that in mind before posting comments to your posts moving forward.
Okay, I guess saying I was 'off base' or asserting definitively that an appeal will fail isn't trying to convey that I don't know what I am talking about. Fair enough.
And if by defensive you mean I stand by my convictions and will doggedly pursue them, then yes I am. I see you do the same thing here sometimes... but I've never thought you were defensive. Just thought you were standing by your argument.
Ironically I post as I see fit as well, yet that causes you some sort of angst because you don't like what or how I post. I'm sorry that it is such a drag for you to deal with my opinions, arguments, or debate points repeatedly.
But it's your forum... I'll refrain from sharing them in your threads moving forward.
Just shut up. She thought you were off base because she thought you were saying an appeal would be justified just because of the request. You were saying if the murder 3 request was approved, it might be grounds for an appeal.
Don't make me come back there...
I only hope the verdict comes out after I get the hell outta Dodge. Riots are only fun if you are carrying.
(07-12-2013, 12:09 AM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]I only hope the verdict comes out after I get the hell outta Dodge. Riots are only fun if you are carrying.
I agree Maggot. I just got back in town after working out of town all week. I was concerned the verdict would be read this week while I was out of town. The thought of battling my way home through several large city's made me prepare for it by taking along enough firepower to arm up both of the company vehicles. Had we encountered any make shift, gang banger, revenge driven, check points, we would have had a much better chance of making it back home.
Now it looks like the verdict will be reached next week and once again I will be working out of town. I will be glad when this BS is over and we get back to normal.
Here Kitty, Kitty, Kitty.