RobertNashville

Humm...that could turn into Detroit's salvation; start charging folks to come to Detroit and go on a perp-hunt. ROTFLMAO

I don't believe he was ever charged with manslaughter but according to our friend Andrew the attorney; the jury will be able to consider manslaughter in their deliberations.   Even so, manslaughter can, if I understand FL law correctly, carry a term of 20 years so I think the state would have to make one hell of a plea offer to get Zimmerman to take one on manslaughter.  Plus, let's not forget the primary reason I believe Zimmerman is on trial in the first place; that being that he is a "white-Hispanic" and sweet little Trayvon which brought in all the race baiters who basically bullied the state into shopping for a DA who would bring charges...if the state offers a plea of any kind but especially of less than Murder 2  will that placate the haters who are threatening to kill Zimmerman themselves if he walks?   I don't know...maybe all the threats are just threats and shouldn't be taken seriously but given how this whole thing has played out to eve get to this point I've got to believe that at least some in state government/prosecution team has to be thinking about the possibilities.

I don't agree.  I agree it will be painful...very painful...but if it really couldn't be done now then it couldn't have been done in the first place.   Assuming there was a split in the country; manufacturing is in every state and all businesses will, of necessity, want to move where they have the most freedom, lowest taxes, and willing work-force....all those who don't move, be they industry or individuals, will have to trade with their new neighbor because they will also have to come to the conclusion that they can't survive without the other.   I think this is all an exercise in theory anyway but as a matter of theory, I do believe it would be possible...just not very pretty or easy.

Yeah...I'm just trying to figure out if I'll try to move to a state that will try to follow the Constitution (assuming there will truly be one), try to find a quiet spot somewhere in TN where I'll likely be left alone until I check out or if I'll just stay right where I am and try to live out my days in as much comfort as possible.   I guess that's one of the advantages of being past middle aged - I've likely got some years left but I also can think it terms of "if I buy this now it will almost certainly outlast me and I won't have to buy another" or simply the knowledge that with what I have, I probably can be relatively comfortable for the likely time I have left. ;)

I can't imagine how it could...there are over 200 odd potential witnesses on the witness list plus next week will be a very short week...if this trial lasts less than a month I'll be pretty surprised.

I'm okay with it...Detroit, Chicago, LA are the poster children of what happens when democrats are in control and can do any damn stupid thing they want to do (Memphis is pretty much on the same course but there are still just enough sane people in Memphis to keep it somewhat balanced).

True but all but a handful believe we need "comprehensive reform"...neither party and neither chamber are willing to do the two things that actually need to be done (were already supposed to have been done years ago). Since they aren't willing to do so that tells me we'll get the senate bill; just a little watered down.

So where do you draw the line...do you murder someone for steeping off the sidewalk onto your grass?  How about if he comes to your door asking for help because his wife and baby are in the car, it's 99 degrees out and their car has broken down...in both cases they are trespassing aren't they?  I did some mischievous things as a kid; I didn't destroy any property or hurt anyone but should I have been killed for soaping a windshield or leaving some dog droppings on someone's front step?   I agree with your observations but I don't believe that killing every perpetrator is the answer either.  

It doesn't take all that much to throw up tents, cots, and a fence...that's more than most criminals deserve anyway.   Yes, we do all have to live with our choices and if you murder someone to protect a laptop you'll have to live with that choice too; probably from a compound such as I described above.

Well, take another look at these fine, upstanding young people because your tax dollars will be supporting them and their offspring just like you are likely supporting their mommies and daddies right now.

Boehner is an ass and a liar...I wouldn't trust him to take care of my basset hound much less believe anything he says....he's the poster child for what's wrong with Congress and with the Republican party. How he manages to keep getting elected from my home state is a mystery...then again, they voted for Kasich so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. ;)   More to the point, Boehner and the Republicans sill want "comprehensive immigration reform"; they just want it done slightly differently than the senate so sure, the senate bill won't even get brought up in the house most likely but amnesty and letting 20 million criminals stay here and opening our borders to all their grandparents, parents, children and aunts and uncles will still pass the house they they'll all get together to work out a compromise bill.   They should do NOTHING until the close the damn border and then start enforcing the law...if these criminals have no job and no free benefits they'll deport themselves and all it would take to make the jobs dry up would be to perp-walk a couple of CEOs who's company is hiring illegals.

The jury can convict of a lessor charge under FL law but let's think this through a bit...   If Martin initiated the physical attack and if Zimmerman was in legitimate fear for his life then Zimmerman has a legitimate claim of self defense. The only thing I can see under FL law that would impact that fairly simple equation is whether Zimmerman's actions leading up to the physical altercation crossed the line; i.e., were sufficient to incite Martin to attack him.   So, the prosecution must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that either Zimmerman was not in legitimate fear for his life or that Zimmerman's actions were so significant that they incited Martin to act out in fear for his own life...for murder 2 they have the additional burden of proving that Zimmerman did all that plus did it with a depraved mind.   If Zimmerman did not cross the line into illegal action that incited Martin to attack him and if Martin initiated the attack and Zimmerman was in legitimate fear for his life then I see no way he can be found guilty of either murder 2 or manslaughter.   The state has a high burden. Plus, their witnesses so far have not very convincing (to say the lest).

Why?  Does anyone still actually think it makes any difference at this point?   I'm not saying don't try; but I do think it's pointless....this IS the last brick in Obama's plan to totally transform America. When this passes "America" will just refer to a large geographic region and we'll all be wishing we had it as good as the French and UK and Greece and Spain...

Can't I just come to your place and hand out during the collapse?  :)

That's true, he didn't but I wasn't trying to imply that Zimmerman knew anything of Martin's past.   My point was that since we know something of Martin's past (and the jury may if it ends up being introduced) means that it is not unreasonable for us to speculate that Martin may well have been up to doing more than just "going to the store" for some skittles...that Martin was acting suspiciously because he really was up to no good and that Zimmerman's suspicion of him was justified.   We can argue the point of whether Zimmerman "had no business approaching and questioning Martin", if indeed that happened, but even if Zimmerman did that it does not give justification to Martin to start a vicious attack on Zimmerman.

Yuup...and they'll pass it with some minor and meaningless changes.   Our country is done...a permanent lower class...expect 40-50 million new, unskilled, uneducated people along with the likely 20+ million already here plus trillions of new debt to support them all.  I submit that a complete economic collapse is now a certainty (assuming something just as bad doesn't happen first).

Excellent post above.   I just thought I'd add that Zimmerman was just on his way to the store to run errands that night...he wasn't out there on "watch" as some, especially initially, tried to paint it...he just happened to be driving by and saw what he thought was a person acting suspiciously...based on what we know about Martin's past and the break-in history of that neighborhood I suspect his suspicion was more than justified.   I guess Zimmerman should have just done what most people do today, ignore what's going on around him and not get involved.

He wouldn't be guilty of anything except perhaps poor judgment in getting out of his truck.   There are nuances here that I don't have time to go into at the moment but bottom line is that if Martin started the physical confrontation and if Zimmerman was in legitimate fear for his life or serious injury (which I don't think there is a lot of disagreement on whether he was in legitimate fear for his life) then Zimmerman's use of deadly force was justified and he isn't guilty of anything.   I don't care that Martin may have felt "disrespected" or insulted or didn't like being followed by this "crazy-ass cracker" or not because none of that would have justified the kind of vicious attack that Zimmerman appears to have been the recipient of.   There is still plenty of things we don't know and we are only four days into what is likely going to be a lengthily trial but the witnesses the prosecution has put on the stand so far haven't given me any reason to not believe Zimmerman's version of events that night.

With regards to her tweets...there seems to be a real possibility that some or all of them will be introduced as evidence. I suspect that prosecution doesn't like that possibility as they don't paint a good picture of this witness' ability to tell the truth. As fare as he language goes; the last question of West before she was allowed to step down was to make clear that she was born in the U.S. and has spoken English her entire life...under those conditions, any problems she has will English would seem to be self-inflicted.

I realize you didn't ask me but your question ties to something I was wondering...sort of the opposite...I'm a bit concerned that this painfully long testimony of "Dee-Dee" could, even with her attitude and even with some of the questionable testimony, make her into a sympathetic character which would play well to the jury who end up feeling sorry for this obviously not well-educated and young woman???

I'm really trying to give this woman the benefit of the doubt; her attitude is back in full and at this point she is even contradicting her only testimony from earlier this morning...watching her testimony is painful...I think I need to make an appoint for a root canal.

Maybe you watched different testimony that I did TMF but she clearly had an attitude problem yesterday, even toward the Judge (and she is night and day different today...I suspect someone had a little "discussion" with her last night)...more importantly, however is how she changed her story yesterday from her sworn deposition...when referring to the yelling on the 911 call and who was yelling for help, she said in her deposition that it "could have been Trayvon"...yesterday it "was Trayvon"...that's a pretty critical thing for a witness to change their mind about.

You old racist. 

Well the answer is simple, the person being called "cracker" is white.

Really JayC...no need to get insulting now is there?  ;)