Unarmed black 17 year old shot by Neighborhood watch captain in gated community...

[emperus]

And I've explained to you why the veracity is not questioned. Just like the veracity of Coreys probable cause affidavit was not questioned.

You would agree that in the interest of fairness, both should be subjected to the same scrutiny?

I don't need your explanation cuz it is wrong.

Here is the law that it used.

A motion is legally sufficient if it alleges facts that would create in a reasonably prudent person a well- founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial

It is not making an argument to the truth of the matter or the ability to qualify the facts alleged. Just that the defense alleges the facts.

I'm not even sure what you mean by they should be under the same scrutiny. I don't think you udnerstand what you are arguing. The law for the dismissal was very clear. THat is why even Lester just ruled with one sentence. Both courts could only rule on the legal sufficiency of the motion.

 

[emperus]

He might have treated them appropriately but he showed clear bias in his comments.

And no, we can't have that. Just like we couldn't have a judge say "Eh, he probably stole it anyway." Just because a defendant is black.

Impartial. Google it.

THis was a 2-1 decision. With even the majority calling it a close call. I think they erred on the side of prudence. So, let's not make it beigger than the ruling was.

Again, I think the judge can be annoyed and be fair.

 

[TerryMathews]

I don't need your explanation cuz it is wrong.

Here is the law that it used.


It is not making an argument to the truth of the matter or the ability to qualify the facts alleged. Just that the defense alleges the facts.

I'm not even sure what you mean by they should be under the same scrutiny. I don't think you udnerstand what you are arguing. The law for the dismissal was very clear. THat is why even Lester just ruled with one sentence. Both courts could only rule on the legal sufficiency of the motion.

Again, what do you think the appellate panel should've taken issue with?

 

[TerryMathews]

How was he stopping the defendant from getting a fair trail? His guilt or innocence will be determined by a jury. The reason Lester was removed is that when Zimmerman is found guilty, as his defense knows he will, that judge wouldn't throw the book at him.

And the judge has a duty to set aside a conviction that is not consistent with the law. So yeah, his bias is relevant.

 

[spidey07]

There is also a difference between winning a fight and stomping someone unconscious.

One thing that hasn't been discussed to death is why GZ only fired one shot. Surely if he was the racist ahole the TM crowd makes him out to be he certainly would have fired a few more shoots? Maybe even emptied his gun? How could he be sure he was dead and not just wounded... unless of course his only intention was to defend himself.

The hard evidence is all in GZ's favor.

Failure to feed, no bullet chambered. This happens when the slide doesn't go all the way back or a weak grip or somebody else touching the gun/slide. GZ would have to rack the slide to get another bullet ready. This physical evidence also helps show self defense.

 

[Druidx]

The next list of discovery, I wonder when and how much will be released.
http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/State's 7th Supplemental Discovery.pdf

 

[JKing106]

And the judge has a duty to set aside a conviction that is not consistent with the law. So yeah, his bias is relevant.

Why do you think Zimmerman's attorneys are trying so desperately to get this case thrown out? If Zimmerman's innocent, why not put him on the stand? Might it have something to do with them knowing it's a lost cause, and just damage control after that point? Maybe getting rid of an unsympathetic judge would be prudent?

You know all this, just you're just that intellectually dishonest and disingenuous.

 

[OCNewbie]

How was he stopping the defendant from getting a fair trail? His guilt or innocence will be determined by a jury. The reason Lester was removed is that when Zimmerman is found guilty, as his defense knows he will, that judge wouldn't throw the book at him.

The judge makes many decisions throughout the course of a trial: he decides which objections to sustain, or overrule, thereby which bits of testimony the jury gets to consider, as well as which pieces of evidence are admissible for jury consideration.

The biggest problem, is that Lester would also have been the presiding judge over any pretrial hearings, such as a SYG hearing, where it's the judge's sole decision on the outcome of that hearing; there is no jury involved whatsoever.

 

[spidey07]

Why do you think Zimmerman's attorneys are trying so desperately to get this case thrown out? If Zimmerman's innocent, why not put him on the stand? Might it have something to do with them knowing it's a lost cause, and just damage control after that point? Maybe getting rid of an unsympathetic judge would be prudent?

You know all this, just you're just that intellectually dishonest and disingenuous.

We get it. You think zimmerman must prove his innocence. That's not the way the US works.

 

[JKing106]

The judge makes many decisions throughout the course of a trial: he decides which objections to sustain, or overrule, thereby which bits of testimony the jury gets to consider, as well as which pieces of evidence are admissible for jury consideration.

The biggest problem, is that Lester would also have been the presiding judge over any pretrial hearings, such as a SYG hearing, where it's the judge's sole decision on the outcome of that hearing; there is no jury involved whatsoever.

Translation: He wouldn't throw it out. Gotcha.

 

[JKing106]

We get it. You think zimmerman must prove his innocence. That's not the way the US works.

If he's arrested on suspicion of a felony with the severity of murder, yes the fuck he does.

 

[xj0hnx]

Hur hur, Limbaugh tells me all I need to know! Lurl!

The problem with you is, you make too many assumptions, and call people things you have no clue about. Your deep seated self hatred has worn through your words.

 

[xj0hnx]

If he's arrested on suspicion of a felony with the severity of murder, yes the fuck he does.

Not in America.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

If he's arrested on suspicion of a felony with the severity of murder, yes the fuck he does.

GZ is innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof in this case is on the prosecution and not the other way around.

 

[JKing106]

Not in America.

Yes, in America. Why do you think people go to trial after being charged with a crime? To prove their innocence, and not be imprisoned or executed without a chance to prove their innocence. That's the point of a trial, you fucking idiot. But then again, since the Patriot Act, all that's gone out the window anyway.

 

[JKing106]

GZ is innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof in this case is on the prosecution and not the other way around.

If everyone is automatically innocent of any crime they're suspected of committing, why do we arrest and detain anyone, and why do we have trials? I guess like Emperus said, the Aurora shooter is innocent, then. He should be released.

You can quote Miranda all fucking day long, it's just words. Everyone is presumed guilty until proven innocent, and that's a fact. The only thing you are truly protected from is being permanently imprisoned or executed without a trial being held first.

 

[Screech]

Yes, in America. Why do you think people go to trial after being charged with a crime? To prove their innocence, and not be imprisoned or executed without a chance to prove their innocence. That's the point of a trial, you fucking idiot. But then again, since the Patriot Act, all that's gone out the window anyway.

hahahahahahahaha

holy fail batman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

 

[Druidx]

Judge Debra S. Nelson has been confirmed as the new judge.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...1_george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-mark-o-mara

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You can quote Miranda all fucking day long, it's just words.

Do you have a clue what your spewing? The Miranda Warning has absolutely nothing to do with the presumption of innocence.

• You have the right to remain silent.
• Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law.
• You have the right to an attorney.
• If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.
• Do you understand these rights I have just read to you?

 

[waggy]

Yes, in America. Why do you think people go to trial after being charged with a crime? To prove their innocence, and not be imprisoned or executed without a chance to prove their innocence. That's the point of a trial, you fucking idiot. But then again, since the Patriot Act, all that's gone out the window anyway.

duh..no.

You don't go on trial to Prove your innocence. The state puts you on trial to prove your guild. HUGE difference and a very important one.

As in if the state can't prove that there is a possibility of guilt the judge can (and has) throw it out.

Then the defense has the right to bring doubt into the states accusation. Remember you have to be proven GUILTY beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[JKing106]

hahahahahahahaha

holy fail batman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

Just words. In reality, it's much different. Try observing and using your own head, for once.

Was Martin innocent until proven guilty? Not to George Zimmerman, self styled judge, jury, and executioner. And apparently not to most police officers investigating the scene. Just another dead n****r to them. And it would have stayed that way until someone with a conscience exposed it.

 

[xj0hnx]

Yes, in America. Why do you think people go to trial after being charged with a crime? To prove their innocence, and not be imprisoned or executed without a chance to prove their innocence. That's the point of a trial, you fucking idiot. But then again, since the Patriot Act, all that's gone out the window anyway.

People don't go to court to prove their innocence, people and the state take other people to court to prove their guilt. It's very telling that such a simple concept, one that guides our justice system, eludes you.

 

[JKing106]

duh..no.

You don't go on trial to Prove your innocence. The state puts you on trial to prove your guild. HUGE difference and a very important one.

As in if the state can't prove that there is a possibility of guilt the judge can (and has) throw it out.

Then the defense has the right to bring doubt into the states accusation. Remember you have to be proven GUILTY beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is no difference. Two sides of the same coin. It's not my fault you're too stupid to realize that. We can argue semantics all day long. If you are ever charged with a crime and/or arrested for said crime, you are presumed to be guilty. You will be required to prove your innocence to a jury.

 

[JKing106]

People don't go to court to prove their innocence, people and the state take other people to court to prove their guilt. It's very telling that such a simple concept, one that guides our justice system, eludes you.

You're a moron, who knows nothing about anything, who gets his "thinking" from right wing radio and fox. In other words, a fucking idiot.. Let's the adults talk.

 

[xj0hnx]

Just words. In reality, it's much different. Try observing and using your own head, for once.

Was Martin innocent until proven guilty? Not to George Zimmerman, self styled judge, jury, and executioner. And apparently not to most police officers investigating the scene. Just another dead n****r to them. And it would have stayed that way until someone with a conscience exposed it.

LOL "just words" BWAHAHAHAHAHA it's a rare moment to see someone as stupid as you in full form for the world to see.