TMF

  As far as YOU'RE concerned.  That is your opinion, and oddly enough it doesn't offend me.   My opinion isn't based on emotion.  Just because some are doesn't mean mine is.  Once again, folks who take a narrow minded view try to lump everyone into one category and make them guilty by association.  An example, many of the Sharpton crowd think that if you think Zimmerman is innocent you are a racist.  I don't believe that at all, but you and Sharpton share quite a common thread to make such accusations.

  It's called an opinion.  Get over it.  I don't see why people like you get your panties twisted in such a wad that someone disagrees with you that you post some bullsh** suggesting what you're suggesting above.

  I think we've been through that enough times without having to post it all again.  What transpires next is about 50 pages of circular debate when what it boils down to is it is my opinion, and I can't transpose my professional a personal experiences into your head so that you could interpret information the way I do.  It just can't be done.   And I wasn't being defensive.  I took your suggestion that I can't separate personal opinion from the burden of proof required to convict someone of a crime as an insult.  People go free all the time and folks think they are guilty.  Watch Dateline or 48 Hours... nearly every one of those cases are exaclty that or the opposite.    I'm sorry that you don't understand why someone could hold the opinion that a person is guilty while at the same time believing it to be a miscarraige of justice to be convicted without sufficient evidence.  I guess you believe OJ was innocent of killing his wife and her friend.  After all, he was found not guilty.

    Did you even read any of my posts to answer your own question?  I've said they don't have the evidence to convict him.  Without sufficient evidence people aren't supposed to be found guilty.  That is how the system is supposed to work.

If you care so much how about you go back and reread my posts where I have said from the beginning that he will not be found guilty unless the state provides strong evidence. I don't know if it is a matter of ignorance on your part or you are just trying to be insulting to suggest I can't separate opinion from fact. I do think he is guilty of manslaughter at a minimum, but without sufficient proof I don't think he will be convicted nor should he be. I thought the prosecution would provide us with a better breakdown of the events/timeline leading up to the confrontation through evidence and witness testimony, as well as provide us with character witnesses to speak on Zimmerman's state of mind. They have failed thus far to effectively do that. I gave them the benefit of the doubt that such evidence and witnesses existed due to the murder 2 charge versus charging him with manslaughter. It isn't looking like that is the case. Somehow I am able to separate my feelings on his guilt from what I believe should happen in a court of law.... that must be some sort of superpower I guess.

  Well if it helps anyone sleep better there won't be a hung jury.  He will be found not guilty.  I expect a last minute plea deal from the prosecution which will be turned down.  There has yet to be a witness that the defense hasn't ripped apart and used as their own.

  I am a dog lover, but yes, I have killed many dogs downrange.  This here is a different story.  First, the owner was responsible enough to have his dog leashed and even was putting him up when the officers commanded him over to cuff him.  If I was in a similar situation and saw a large animal I would direct the owner to secure him before taking him into custody.  I realize that delves into the realm of Monday morning quarterbacking, but how else did they see that going down?  At a minimum, I would be uncuffing that dude with the quickness to try and get him to control his dog.  I don't want to have to shoot a dog.  I have mentally blocked the category of Iraqi dogs as to make them not equal to US dogs, but to be honest I know they are the same and I feel horrible about the ones I killed even though there was a purpose behind it.  I don't think this dog fits in the same category; he wasn't a wild animal left to run loose.  He was being walked on a leash up until he was placed in the car and prepared to leave.  The cops chose to then go after this guy although he was leaving.  If it was his music and they did tell him to turn it down they why make it an issue when he was going to remove the music from the equation?

  Music.  It sounded like everyone and his cousin were out there watching this and driving by.  How do you know it was his music?  Secondly, he was about to leave, as indicated by putting his dog up.  If they were so concerned about his music why not come over and tell him to turn it down.  I never heard any commands by either of these officers to turn any music down, so I don't know where you're getting that from, and furthermore, if it was him it makes no sense that they're going to arrest him when he is about to remove the "violation" from the environment.  If they were so concerned about music (and apparently it was his according to you) why not just let him go on his way and take his music with him?    It's clear what was going on here.  These two douchenozzles got pissed about their "authoritaaah" not being respected so they flexed their nuts and ended up shooting a dumb animal that didn't know any better and was left with no options. 

That picture looks pretty southern. If you find yourself closer to the big base in Kandahar I'll swing in to buy you a near beer.

I think back to many of the interviews with Egyptians I listened to in the weeks before Morsi was elected.  There was a common thread with many of the folks in the rural areas that did not support him.  They similarly did not support the leftovers from Mubarak's cronies, but their concern was that if they elected another Mubarak they would be dealing with the same corruption and a stale economy.  However, with Morsi they were concerned that if he came to power they would never be able to remove him democratically because Morsi would illegally cling to power.   These people get it.  They know the deal when it comes to the ideological fruitcakes.  Morsi was one of them, and if he had stayed in power we would have watched a much better armed and more strategically dangerous enemy emerge from that area of the world.  Maybe things won't be much better with the back and forth that will define the next few years of Egypts political history, but it won't be any worse than what was on the horizon.   It isn't as if I view this as a romantic victory for the future of Egypt.  I know Arab culture well enough to know that there is no hope for that region of the world (and yes, they aren't technically Arabs, but their culture is the same as every other Arab country I've been to).  But the difference is that while the secular movement headed by the armed forces is not our admitted enemy, Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood were.  I'd rather take my chances with a maybe ally/enemy than a definite enemy.  And I wouldn't even classify the upper echelons of Egyptian officers as "maybe".  They all worked for Mubarak and most of them had rapport with our own military through the aid and joint training exercises we do with them.  I would reason to bet there isn't one officer involved in this coup who hasn't had a professional relationship with our military at some point in time.  The exact opposite is true for Morsi and his cronies.  I'm sure that half the people Morsi hangs out with are on the CIA's kinetic targeting list.

  He was recording.  He then ceased recording and attempted to leave.  Only when he was getting loaded into his car did the cops decide to approach and detain him.  Could you please tell me what law he was breaking?  And yes, there were other people recording but he was the only one close enough to get good video of how the detainee those two cops were guarding was being treated.  I couldn't tell by the video we were watching if there was wrongdoing regarding that detainee, but perhaps there was something going on that this citizen decided was relevant to record.  What law was he breaking to require that he be arrested, especially since he was clearly going to leave in his car?    The only thing I can figure out is the cops didn't like his comments about violating another person's civil rights and they decided they were going to cuff and stuff him.  Tough guys those cops are.  If where they were was supposed to be was a secure area then it is on the PD for doing a poor job of setting up a proper cordon and limiting access.  I didn't see this guy break any laws.  I just see him doing what the Constitution says are his God given rights and being cuffed for it.  These cops were douches and the trigger happy one got his kill.  Serving and protecting the #### out of us once again.

  We weren't watching the same video.  What I saw was this guy trying to put his dog up in his car and cops approaching him to detain him.  The owner was attempting to comply to the officer's demands to come towards them.  How was he supposed to know he was going to be arrested for committing no crime?  If two cops approached me and told me to come towards them I would not hesitate to comply.  This man was clearly cooperating, the officers made no attempt to try and peacefully control the situation by allowing this man to properly secure his animal.  If it were my dog you'd be damn certain she would attack anyone handling me in such a manner.  These cops were clearly rough with him, unnecessarily as he was complying, and still I'm trying to figure out what crime he was committing.  He was in a place he had a legal right to be doing something he had a legal right to do (recording police activity).    A COP THAT IS AFRAID OF BEING VIDEO TAPED IS A BAD COP!  No if, ands or buts about that.  If there is nothing to hide there is no reason to have a problem with being taped. 

This is such a huge deal, and no one cares.  Obama is on the wrong side of this one again.  As if it makes a difference that an Islamic extremist was freely elected or not.  Morsi was still a self admitted enemy of everything the west stands for, yet Obama celebrated his election.  Well, now the world realizes that Morsi was just as bad as we've always assumed him to be, he is out of power, and a secular organization once again has control of the reins.... yet the White House would have us believe this is a bad thing?  Seems to me THESE are the folks we should have been backing all along.   Obama should have egg all over his face, yet top new is something about a Kardashian.  At what point do the liberals come out and admit that Obama is in way over his head?  Geez, we can't go one week without an Obama scandal and/or disaster.  When Bush stepped on his crank the media wouldn't shut up about it..... now... crickets from the media.

Usually I give LEOs the benefit of the doubt.  Once again Kommiefornia cops have proven they don't deserve the assumption of innocence.  First, I didn't know it was illegal to record police officers.  Almost certain there is a place in the Constitution that addresses that.  Second, this man was on his way and they chose to detain him for no good reason and roughly handle him, then act surprised that the dog (which the owner was given NO opportunity to secure) became aggressive.   Sorry, these cops deserve to rot in hell for eternity.  What f***ing pieces of sh** decide to become cops just so they can f*** with people.  This group of f***wads do not represent the LEOs I know.  They are a disgrace, and a shining example of what we have to expect out of California. 

  Agreed.

  I saw this thread and recalled one not too long ago where you had taken one down with a 1911 in .45 ACP.  Still think that is pretty badass.

  Oh, and by the way, that was eloquent.

  Yeah, there is no argument there.  I know I'm gonna catch hell for still having this opinion, but I continue to believe that Zimmerman was emboldened by his carry piece to the point he intended to start a conflict so he could end it with his gun.  However, it is clear now there is no evidence to prove that, and if I was sitting on the jury there is no way I would convict him.  It might be early to call the game, but unless the prosecution has a reliable witness to testify to George's state of mind, and physical evidence to back it up, I don't see how anyone could convict him beyond a reasonable doubt.    Even on Nancy Grace tonight (CNN HLN) they had a black expert sticking up for George Zimmerman.  If CNN has given up it's safe to say that the outcome of this case is clear.  Don't worry, PMSNBC will still be the voice of insanity.

I think that's why they screen them. At any rate, if someone bent on sending Zimmerman to jail is sitting in the jury box and has been able to hide their sinister plot all along, I doubt that there would be more than one. That will result in a mistrial, or the judge losing her mind berating the jury until the hold out capitulates. A mistrial for Zimmerman might as well be a not guilty verdict. The state won't try him again.

I just think it is quick to assume he did something negligent without further information. I have a friend who was a working dog handler that ended up shooting his own dog while on mission. Lotta folks talk smack about it who weren't there and didn't digest the circumstances to understand that it wasn't the move of a half-wit handler, it was a split second decision that had to be made and unfortunately it turned out bad. Nonetheless, it didnt stop folks who weren't there from running their suck about it; meanwhile this guy is having one of the worst days of his life.

We just had one in Clarksville only 2 blocks from the police station around 7am a few weeks ago. They robbed a lawyer. They were caught.

I seem to recall advice from a Knighted gentleman regarding the correlation between one's enthusiasm for large asses and their trustworthiness. Not calling you a liar, but just think about it for a moment.

HLN runs it all day and they are broadcast on XM.

I don't think that is an issue. 6 people conspiring together to cast false votes? Yeah, no. For argument's sake I'll give you one, but that is a hung jury and the state would never try him again. This has been an epic embarrassment so far.

Based on his last few answers to the defense I would say it won't matter unless there is significant witness testimony in store that is corroborated with evidence. Two investigating officers gave testimony today which has all the right words to put doubt in the minds of jurors. If I was on the jury there would have to be some pretty serious evidence/testimony to convict him in light of this testimony.