TripleDigitRide

The woodwork looks good from here.

Assuming another grants him asylum, could he legally be allowed to leave Russia a country that country? No longer having a US passport and all?

What would or could be the worst thing to happen if Russia allowed Snowden to leave the country without proper documentation? 

It's not legal for LEOs to commandeer your home, is it?

Never mess with a woman scorned. Sadly, there are a few shops with such customer service. Thankfully, I've had the misfortune of dealing with only one or two.

We're assuming they chose good ones.

On a few occasions, DavidS mention "personal" reasons as playing a part in his decision making process regarding the guilt or innocence of Zimmerman. It's become obvious that those personal reasons are playing a far bigger part in that process, when compared to logic and common sense. My only issue with that is, thought processes like that make for a very dangerous potential jury pool.

Now, that's an opinion. But being a POS doesn't make you guilty of murder or manslaughter or jaywalking....

Yes, which means it would worked better in cooler climates, and be pretty well useless at temperatures closer that of the human body.

Very impressive. Congrats to the young lady.

While she's obviously a very smart kid, the output doesn't appear very impressive or usable, even for it's design.

As I hinted at in my initial post, he basically did the same thing Kwik was doing when he got busted. Almost no one stuck up for his decision to exercise his Second Amendment right, so I wouldn't expect to see much different treatment here. 

If the prosecution is able to have Martin's testify that the screams are coming from Trayvon, I sure hope the defense calls on Zimmerman's mother to testify that the screams are coming from George.

Actually, the evidence that has been presented to the jury is available to all of us. It's one thing to have an opinion that you may or may not have chosen to handle the situation in the same manner in which Zimmerman did, but when deciding a man's guilt or innocence, it's probably best to stick to the actual evidence. 

Here's the first video.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN3ehYJ3NMA&feature=share&list=PLZRzoZLUOXSq8fvkRoYHTlgGvp0ordOQq

Maybe he's related to Kwik. 

This kind of remind me of Serino's testimony during the Zimmerman trial. The police can lie to you when it's convenient for them, but you can lie to them when it's convenient for you. 

So true.  :rofl:

The problem has been, all along, that your arguments have been purely speculation. If you know anything about a trial, you already know that speculation holds zero weight.    The evidence is that Zimmerman did not chase down Martin. The evidence is that Zimmerman was walking back towards his vehicle when Martin jumped out of the darkness and physically assaulted Zimmerman. You just so happen not to like the source. Like the source or not, evidence is evidence, especially when there's zero evidence to the contrary.    For arguments sake, let's assume there is no evidence saying that Martin jumped out of the darkness and physically assaulted Zimmerman. Do you have any evidence that Zimmerman was doing anything other than what he said he was doing? Again, speculations and assumptions hold zero weight. 

It's a near impossible feat to prove something that was never there to begin with.

If the judge wouldn't allow testimony from "experts" as to who's screaming, I don't understand how she'd allow testimony from an obviously biased mother who hardly raised her son.

I appreciate the answer thanks. Seems like an expensive ploy,. That testimony sounded as close as we're gonna get of a 1st hand account assuming GZ doesn't take the stand. The State lacks any real evidence for the jury, so they have been throwing anything and everything at the jury, hoping that something will stick. I've never watched so much of a trial before, and I find it quite disturbing that the State is allowed to blatantly project so much emotion on to the jury. I'm equally disturbed at how the State has been allowed to make some under-handed comments and physical gestures, obviously insinuating things that he may not otherwise be allowed to come right out and say. This case has not given me a much faith in our system, even if the jury reaches the verdict that I think they should.

Also, Richard has a great voice.

Great first video. I would suggest trying to find a way to seat the host and guests in a manner in which the host doesn't have to turn from one guest to the other. If you're using just one camera, that may be a bit more difficult.