TexasCHLforum.com

sjfcontrol wrote:

baldeagle wrote:You guys will love this one. George Zimmerman Juror Says He 'Got Away With Murder'

"That's where I felt confused, where if a person kills someone, then you get charged for it," Maddy said. "But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty."

Apparently there is no minimum IQ required for jury duty.

If I am ever tried for something, I think I will use stuff like this to argue that these people aren't my peers.

jocat54 wrote:

Crossfire wrote:You guys are all starting to annoy the bejeebers out of me. You have managed 193 pages without a lock in this thread, but you are all pushing the envelope now.

Please.

I'd second this, but it wouldn't do any good as I already know the thread it will continue in.

VoiceofReason wrote:“The DOJ has also set up a public email address to take in tips on its civil rights investigation.” The Orlando Sentinel quoting Barbara Arnwine, president and executive director the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law “who earlier in the day joined calls for federal civil rights charges against Zimmerman”.

Unbelievable.Our government is completely out of control.

I'd suggest inundating the tip line with "tips" from the Constitution and suggesting they leave GZ alone, but that would just get us all on a special list. Oh wait, we're all already on that list.

suthdj wrote:Slightly off topic but relavant to the racial element of profiling.

http://news.yahoo.com/black-americas-re ... 00529.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I knew that the crime numbers were disproportionate, but the stats in that article are astonishing.

If Zimmerman is "white Hispanic", then Obama is "white black".

Seems like Martin's past might be relevant in deciding whether he was more or less likely to attack Zimmerman as Zimmerman claims.

I keep going back and forth on this in my head.

It seems like there is no way the prosecutor's office could "accidentally" release this stuff in the middle of the biggest, most scrutinized case they will likely ever see. But perhaps they truly are that careless and stupid.

If it was done on purpose, I think it was done to further bias people against GZ. But that is so ridiculously transparent. It is possible that things like this and the overcharging with murder are really a means of forcing a mistrial or loss while appeasing the masses? Of course, if that's the case they are really making a big gamble that their plan will work. On the other hand, they probably don't give two squirts about whether they ruin GZ's life.

It's not enough that she wants money from the state. Apparently, she's now suing the homeowners association.

I don't remember where I read it (so it may be entirely untrue), but I read that he is only immune from civil action if the case doesn't make it to trial. But if it goes to trial, then he can be sued even if he is acquitted.

I'll try to remember where I saw that.

Heartland Patriot, I'm going to assume that, since it's a peeve of yours, you were just doing general griping, with none of that directed at me.

I lived outside of Baltimore and worked in downtown Bmore for a number of years; only moving back to TX 2 years ago. Things are far worse in Bmore than you think they are. The PD, city hall, and the governor actively fudge the crime numbers. The last year I was there, they had a story in the paper that said if New York City had Bmore's murder rate, they would have had more than 3000 murders. Top that off with a totally anti-gun and anti-self defense system and I'm glad I don't live there anymore. I'll be even more glad I'm not there when the GZ verdict comes down.

I can't believe I agree with Dershowitz, but I think he's entirely correct. From a moral perspective, it matters what GZ did. But as far as murder charges go, it doesn't matter in the least what he did; the only thing that matters is what they can PROVE he did. As has been stated before, GZ didn't lose his right to self defense because he got out of his car. And the prosecutor already admitted there's no evidence he attacked Martin. Right there, the case is over.

Race really shouldn't have anything to do with this. The system is designed to require evidence to protect people of all races. Everybody in the world knows OJ did it, but hey, if the glove don't fit, you must acquit. I don't remember Sharpton or anybody else marching in the streets chanting "justice for Nicole and Ron".

observed two men chasing each other

Sounds to me like this witness is an idiot. How do two men chase each other? Unless they were running back and forth after each other, one of them had to be chasing the other, not "two men chasing each other."

This case continues to amaze me. GZ might or might not have been lawfully defending himself, but I was always under the impression that EVIDENCE was required to charge and convict someone. The prosecution already admitted they have no evidence to show who started the fight. In my mind, it's over right there.

To make matters worse, now we're punishing people for simply stating their opinion on the subject.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/ ... -post?lite" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;