Hozzie

This SA is a joke.  She sounds like she is giving an oscar speech.  She doesn't sound too disappointed either?????

yeah baby!

I wouldn't say that for sure. As they mentioned on Fox, it could be just one person who has the question maybe before they are willing to go Not Guilty. I am not reading too much into this. I think they just want to make sure they are 100% sure of what the law is supposed to mean. Another good point was just made. The jury is all women and in general, I think they are more inclined to dot every i and cross every T. I think this is probably the reason for this. I still believe that there is at least one person who will see reasonable doubt. I have been wrong before and may be again, but I hope not. On a side note, saw this on twitter. Pretty funny.

Conspiracy theory:  They have agreed to not guilty and didn't want to bring back a verdict that quick to reduce the perception that they didn't give it due consideration.  We can hope can't we.   I actually think it will be a hung jury.  I can't for the life of me believe that out of 6 hopefully reasonable people that one won't hold out for not guilty even under pressure to do the emotional thing.

I think it is pretty standard for the prosecution to always go first.  They get to give their closing, then listen to the defense, and then respond to the defense.  Essentially, the defense gets to use the prosecutions words against them in their closing, so this just gives the prosecution the ability to do the same.  I don't really have a problem with this, I think there would be a definite disadvantage to not have the ability to respond to some things.     This case is so ridiculous due to the lack of facts, but in a lot of cases, it isn't like this.

I know it has been said before, but if this jury finds him guilty of anything, what a carriage of injustice.  I can't imagine how any self respecting juror could bring themselves to convict someone with essentially no evidence.  They may not like Zman personally, but I can't imagine how you could justify convicting him. 

  I think if you are going to say that Zman "should" have stayed in his car, then you can absolutely say that TM "should" have ran home.  Fact is, Zman "could" have stayed in his car and this may have been averted <OR> TM "could" have ran home and this may have been averted.  Fact is, neither of them did what they "could" or "should" have.  They both have equal blame on that front.  In the end it doesn't matter what they could or should have done.  There was an altercation, Zman was fearful for his life (I do believe this although it could be argued and that is why there is the case) and ultimately he killed TM.  No matter who could have, should have, or would have done anything, I don't believe the prosecution has proven any other scenario than what Zman has consistently said, which was self-defense.

/\ /\ All I can say is, that is funny, I don't care who you are.  

Prosecution's closing is pretty pathetic.  Short summary "Trust me, he's lying and did it.  DId I mention he's lying? That's all I got."

Thanks for doing that.  I have Weimi as well and would have had to do the same thing.  Glad you found the owner.

Think Wendy was happy with the likeness? Or was he dating/married to Bobcat Goldthwait? On a side note, it's pretty scary what you can find on Google in less than 30 seconds.

  This we can agree on!

I just turned it on right at that point.  i would have liked to see the beginning of it.

No problem, I am not trying to convince you or anyone else.  That's my opinion and I believe it is a representative term, not just name calling.    I will bow out now, I have said my peace.

Yeah, I understand.  I was implying a reference to your party last week where you referenced cornhole.  Just trying to bring it all back around. :pleased:

  I thought you were going to say, then next thing you know, you're playing cornhole!  :ugh:

  I am far from politically correct.  I love to debate and have these conversations.  I would be just a comfortable having this discussion in person in the sense that I believe what I believe.  I don't see it as a personal attack, but rather an honest opinion of how I interpret your words.  I would have the same exact conversation with my mother and be willing to call her a bigot, or racist, or whatever other correctly applied term to my view on the matter.  This isn't personal to me, it's my view based on the information as I have interpreted it.  I have never been in a fight in my life and sure as hell am not going to get into one over this.  But I am willing to give a blunt, honest opinion of how I see it.  When you respond to posts like these, you open yourself up to criticism.  That's just the way it is.  I don't expect to be coddled and neither should anyone else.

  My statement (it wasn't a suggestion or disingenuous) was based on my interpretation of RichardR's posts as a whole.  I am passing judgment that he is a bigot (someone who hates gays for being gay) in my opinion.  I don't hate him for it, but I do disagree with his view on this particular matter.  He has the right to not like whomever or whatever he wants for any reason he wants.  Just don't act like you aren't passing judgement and acting holier than though.  I fully own my statement and will stand by it.  If you feel I am disingenuous, I am ok with that too.

  We can agree to disagree and surprisingly I don't hate you  :pleased: .  I think if a citizen is being polite, the side of the road is as good as anywhere.

  No, we can disagree all day long and I don't have a problem with that.  I agree to disagree with many people on many issues on a daily basis.  I don't hate them.  Pretending that someone isn't passing judgement and just giving their opinion and that is somehow different is laughable. 

  So is me saying "I think you are a bigot who wants to convince yourself that you're not" me passing judgment or me simply having an opinion.  Many of us must be too ignorant to grasp this significant difference.  Anyone who wants to say they have an opinion, but aren't passing judgement are balled face liars.  I think we would have more respect for you if you would just say you hate gays.  At least then you wouldn't be pretending to not pass judgement.

  I am not sure about this.  No one is saying you have to go looking for a fight like this kid did, but in a general, every day stop, if I feel like I am being harassed or bullied, I will let them know about it.  I think most cops just want to do their job ,but there are many who think they have extra authority and like to show it.  The good part about today is that we can also video all of these exchanges.  Cops have camera's so they can show what actually happened and the more and more these kinds of things happen and we video them, it will eventually have the effect of changing behavior of how the bad cops respond as well.     To me, it's a bit like a kid being in a fight with the bully at school.  Do you teach them to stand up for themselves right then or wait until they get home and tell you.   I can tell you which one I would tell my kid to do.  I am not saying to be aggressive, but just standing up for my rights is something I feel I should do.  I will also tell it in court, but you can be sure I won't be bullied in person into doing something I know is illegal.  Video is a great tool as long as you are the one acting professionally.   I would ask, was the bus the place to start a lesson in civil rights?  Sometimes you just have to do what is right.

I agree, he was very professional.  While not something I would do, I don't really have an issue with what those guys did.  They didn't break any law and weren't complete douchbags to the officer.  I tend to agree that the officer was trying to get them to willingly give more info and he should have, but just the same, they had every right not to give it.     Again, not what I would do, but nice to see an officer know the law and not try to bully them into doing something they didn't have to.  

  The same could be said about guns.  The majority of gun owners are responsible (as are drivers I would argue), so should we put up with random checks of our guns and background to make sure we should still be able to possess guns?  Because some act irresponsible isn't a valid reason for me that the government should be able to do whatever they want, including bullying people into submission.  If irresponsibility is the deciding factor, we are doomed.

  He answered every question he was asked.  They didn't ask him for his ID or any other questions such as "have you been drinking?"  I am not a lawyer, but without asking any questions I don't know how you turn that into reasonable suspicion.  I think they have a long way to go to show that this was proper procedure in any sense of the word.  If they would have asked for ID, then ok, but that wasn't the case.  I am not saying the kid was completely right, but there was a much better way for the cop to handle it.