Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are compassionate, Nat, but do you know why I don't feel bad for Zimmerman and his folks? Because he's still alive, and he could have avoided killing Trayvon by not following him. I seriously hope for a conviction.
You hope for a conviction or you hope for the rules of law to be followed? Was his guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
Dammit, he's losing me. Get to the case! The jury has been there long enough. Stop wasting their time.
Not surprised he's losing lots of people here on CD in the early part of his opening. He's explaining the real court system BECAUSE he understands that in order to get an acquittal that he has to explain how different the court system is from everyday life and how we make decisions every day........there will be a jury instruction to the jury to use their "everyday" common sense......And O'Mara is VERY CORRECT in his explanation that making decisions in a court of law is actually different from making the snap decisions we all make every day....he's focusing on reasonable doubt for a good reason.
After all, this is the DEFENSE arguing right now. Clearly a better legal team than the State according to almost everyone. It's not just a TV show.
Most adults would understand his argument and not.
Most people with a brain would understand that he's trying to protect his client, and the only way to protect his client is to tell the jury not to fill in the gaps. When you fill in the gaps, yo have to vote guilty!
Actually I did say that if the roles had been reversed and a black teenager had just shot an unarmed white man, I do think the police would have arrested him on the spot.
And done a toxicology report......no question a double standard existed.....both among the cops and Zimmerman.
Most people with a brain would understand that he's trying to protect his client, and the only way to protect his client is to tell the jury not to fill in the gaps. When you fill in the gaps, yo have to vote guilty!
No, when you fill in gaps you are doing nothing but speculating. If you go by law and what was presented in court, it has to be Not Guilty. The ONLY way to come up with Guilty is if you go off emotion and speculate about non facts. That is not how our system is supposed to work, no matter how you feel. Its not about feelings and emotion, its about evidence and facts presented
Have Patience... He must build some groundwork and understanding.
He seems to be building on the incredibly stupid instructions that will be coming from the judge. He needs to let them know that a lesser charge is no more acceptable that a firing squad. I guess.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.