NoSaint Posted June 27, 2013 Posted June 27, 2013 That's what I'm saying, too. gotcha, thought you were implying it was simply the cursive text, and not a greater literacy issue.
bbb Posted June 27, 2013 Posted June 27, 2013 I was watching yesterday when the defense attorney gave her that sheet to read lines 18-23, and I could tell she didn't know how to read it............But, I guess I do wonder then how she tweets?
boyst Posted June 27, 2013 Posted June 27, 2013 She is going to be 20 years old and in 12th grade. Me thinks da skoolsies in Florieda arnut thawt goode
1billsfan Posted June 27, 2013 Posted June 27, 2013 Please believe me that I am no GZ supporter and he is not 'my guy'. I am most concerned with trying to have a rational discussion with those who will likely react badly should GZ be acquitted, which I think is likely. Maybe that is too much to ask. I am putting my faith in the justice system and those on the jury and am hopeful that others respect their decision. Sorry, didn't mean to imply he was "your guy." Just that merely having an opinion on the matter will seem like you're taking his side. That is to say, to someone who may possibly be emotionally invested in the outcome for reasons beyond the facts.
NoSaint Posted June 27, 2013 Posted June 27, 2013 I was watching yesterday when the defense attorney gave her that sheet to read lines 18-23, and I could tell she didn't know how to read it............But, I guess I do wonder then how she tweets? I'd guess poorly.
Chump Change Posted June 27, 2013 Posted June 27, 2013 Sorry, didn't mean to imply he was "your guy." Just that merely having an opinion on the matter will seem like you're taking his side. That is to say, to someone who may possibly be emotionally invested in the outcome for reasons beyond the facts. Understand, and thanks.
NoSaint Posted June 27, 2013 Posted June 27, 2013 CNN hitting a new low on the cracker comment: "I can't believe people are using her testimony to put words in trayvons mouth"
Doc Posted June 27, 2013 Posted June 27, 2013 CNN hitting a new low on the cracker comment: "I can't believe people are using her testimony to put words in trayvons mouth" Saying that they called white people in the neighborhood "crazy ass crackers" all the time is about the only thing I believe from her.
Bigfatbillsfan Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 If GZ had all those bad things on his record... What about the suspensions for TM. The fights he got in? The drugs he dealt? The images of him smoking? Growing pot? The things he said on Facebook and Twitter? The kid was nothing to society but a little punk. I would have to agree. If the Prosecution is going to try to use past character flaws to bolster their case, the Defense should be able to use TM's in Zimmerman's Defense. You are so dismissable. You know, that was the second time you called me out on the spelling of a word and both times you've been wrong. Most people with at least half a brain would look up the spelling before continuing with their folly. You, on the other hand, not only highlight your stupidity, but keep posting schit to draw even more attention to it. I'm losing interest in you as my cat toy. It used to be that I had to actually do something to make you go off the deep end, but now my mere presence in a thread does it. That's why you are so dismissable. Well then, consider yourself dismissed. Feel free to go !@#$ yourself.
Rob's House Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 i know that. its easier to say on national tv than "i cant read" and shes previously refused to read paperwork in this trial, was my point. doesnt make much difference either way, just an observation. Oh, an observation? Well who the !@#$ are you, man, Isaac Newton? Saying that they called white people in the neighborhood "crazy ass crackers" all the time is about the only thing I believe from her. They should google "Paula Deen".
3rdnlng Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 I would have to agree. If the Prosecution is going to try to use past character flaws to bolster their case, the Defense should be able to use TM's in Zimmerman's Defense. Well then, consider yourself dismissed. Feel free to go !@#$ yourself. Still haven't found the cohones to admit you were wrong, eh? Now who's the jackass? Here Sue: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dismissable dismissable Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary Jump to: navigation, search English[edit] Etymology[edit] dismiss + -able Adjective[edit] dismissable (comparative more dismissable, superlative most dismissable) Capable of being dismissed. Most of their arguments were dismissable as obvious fallacies.
Koko78 Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 I would have to agree. If the Prosecution is going to try to use past character flaws to bolster their case, the Defense should be able to use TM's in Zimmerman's Defense. The problem is that Zimmerman's character/state of mind is very much in at issue to show a motive to shoot Martin, whereas Zimmerman had no knowledge of Martin's history when he shot him. Martin's character is irrelevant, Zimmerman's isn't. However, I have the feeling that the prosecutors have already blown the trial. It probably doesn't matter anymore. They better pray Zimmerman takes the stand so they can hammer him with passport/money lies.
bbb Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 How is Martin's character irrelevant? Doesn't it take two to tango?
3rdnlng Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 The problem is that Zimmerman's character/state of mind is very much in at issue to show a motive to shoot Martin, whereas Zimmerman had no knowledge of Martin's history when he shot him. Martin's character is irrelevant, Zimmerman's isn't. However, I have the feeling that the prosecutors have already blown the trial. It probably doesn't matter anymore. They better pray Zimmerman takes the stand so they can hammer him with passport/money lies. Martin's character and past rumored deeds would be important to the case to show that he was capable of being the aggressor.
boyst Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-trial-day-end-of-day-analysis-video-of-states-witnesses/
Doc Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 Martin's character and past rumored deeds would be important to the case to show that he was capable of being the aggressor. Exactly. Which is in diametrical opposition to the cherubic picture of him they almost exclusively show.
Koko78 Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 Martin's character and past rumored deeds would be important to the case to show that he was capable of being the aggressor. You can't really say that you were in fear of your life based upon information you had no way of knowing at the time. Martin's character is irrelevant to the current trial, just as Zimmerman's character issues -which Martin would have no way of knowing - would be irrelevant if Martin had been the one to survive the encounter and be on trial for Zimmerman's murder (assuming he asserted a justification defense). Of course, regardless of who is being tried, you can only go so far into character/propensity evidence unless the defendant opens the door.
bbb Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 So, if Charles Manson shows up at your house, and you end up killing him, his character had nothing to do with it?
Doc Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 http://legalinsurrec...ates-witnesses/ Holy schnikes! Look at the cans on that bimbo!
Koko78 Posted June 28, 2013 Posted June 28, 2013 So, if Charles Manson shows up at your house, and you end up killing him, his character had nothing to do with it? Do I have any idea of what Charles Manson did back in the 1960's? Do famous people who happen to be currently incarcerated routinely show up at my doorstep? Is this a relevant (or even intelligent) example? Inquiring minds want to know!
Recommended Posts