Not too many lefties admit to voting for more Republicans than Dems.
Just far right lackies like yourself fail to see that.
I have stated my position on the Zimmerman matter more times than you can count. I neither see his innocence nor guilt at this point in time.
What is it like to never have a thought of your own? To wake up everyday and not have any idea what to do, until you can turn on Fox or check the heritage foundation website so you know what to think, eat, and breath?
You should try pragmatism for a change.
Children this is a perfect example of 100% wrong conjecture.
If I was a far righty as you have presumed then I surely would not have voted for Mr. Clinton.
Not too many lefties admit to voting for more Republicans than Dems.
Just far right lackies like yourself fail to see that.
I have stated my position on the Zimmerman matter more times than you can count. I neither see his innocence nor guilt at this point in time.
What is it like to never have a thought of your own? To wake up everyday and not have any idea what to do, until you can turn on Fox or check the heritage foundation website so you know what to think, eat, and breath?
You should try pragmatism for a change.
Children this is a perfect example of 100% wrong conjecture.
If I was a far righty as you have presumed then I surely would not have voted for Mr. Clinton.
But my point was in post two, you pointed out the racial divide and specifically used two black people as examples of those looking at certain facts to assume guilt.
Wouldn't the same apply to your fellow white far right wingers who assume innocence?
Or perhaps you can link one right wing poster here who suggests otherwise? If you aren't sure who those might be, just look for all the posters with whom you agree with.
Iagreewithmostofyour posts ! What does that denote ?
And I too can't say at this juncture whether I belive Zimmerman is / was innocent or guilty. Nor have I made a verdict in any post.
Please list all the right wing posters whom you so liberally extend professionalism,respect,and fairness to.
But my point was in post two, you pointed out the racial divide and specifically used two black people as examples of those looking at certain facts to assume guilt.
Wouldn't the same apply to your fellow white far right wingers who assume innocence?
Or perhaps you can link one right wing poster here who suggests otherwise? If you aren't sure who those might be, just look for all the posters with whom you agree with.
Iagreewithmostofyour posts ! What does that denote ?
And I too can't say at this juncture whether I belive Zimmerman is / was innocent or guilty. Nor have I made a verdict in any post.
Please list all the right wing posters whom you so liberally extend professionalism,respect,and fairness to.
A Florida judge will decide on Friday whether to release George Zimmerman on bail before his trial for second-degree murder ...
The hearing would include testimony from Zimmerman's family, after the defense filed an unopposed motion to allow them to speak on his behalf by phone.[Trayvon Martin’s parents said they would also attend Friday’s bond hearing]
George Zimmerman even requested a meeting with Trayvon's parents, but their lawyer said that would not happen.
Jeff Weiner, a former president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers who practices in Miami, said the charge of second-degree murder meant that Zimmerman was not necessarily entitled to be released on bail.
But if Angela Corey, the special prosecutor assigned to the case, wants to oppose his release on bond she will have to preview at least some of the evidence the state has against Zimmerman in proceedings known in Florida as an Arthur hearing, Weiner said
"The state has the burden of proof to go forward and convince the judge that proof of guilt is evident and that the presumption of guilt is great ... That's what this hearing is about," Weiner said.
To accomplish that, he added, Corey will have to lay out the state's case far more vigorously than she did in a probable cause affidavit made public when Zimmerman made his first appearance in court on April 12.
To avoid tipping her hand in the case, Corey may simply decide not to oppose Zimmerman's release on bond. That would be highly unusual, however.
"There's no indication Mr. Zimmerman's a flight risk. Arguably, he's not the type of person you need to hold over in a non-bondable fashion," Charles Rose, a professor at Florida's Stetson University College of Law
~
If they grant bail and put Zimmerman out on bond it might cause unrest again in the skittles community or physical action against him,, if his location becomes known................
A Florida judge will decide on Friday whether to release George Zimmerman on bail before his trial for second-degree murder ...
The hearing would include testimony from Zimmerman's family, after the defense filed an unopposed motion to allow them to speak on his behalf by phone.[Trayvon Martin’s parents said they would also attend Friday’s bond hearing]
George Zimmerman even requested a meeting with Trayvon's parents, but their lawyer said that would not happen.
Jeff Weiner, a former president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers who practices in Miami, said the charge of second-degree murder meant that Zimmerman was not necessarily entitled to be released on bail.
But if Angela Corey, the special prosecutor assigned to the case, wants to oppose his release on bond she will have to preview at least some of the evidence the state has against Zimmerman in proceedings known in Florida as an Arthur hearing, Weiner said
"The state has the burden of proof to go forward and convince the judge that proof of guilt is evident and that the presumption of guilt is great ... That's what this hearing is about," Weiner said.
To accomplish that, he added, Corey will have to lay out the state's case far more vigorously than she did in a probable cause affidavit made public when Zimmerman made his first appearance in court on April 12.
To avoid tipping her hand in the case, Corey may simply decide not to oppose Zimmerman's release on bond. That would be highly unusual, however.
"There's no indication Mr. Zimmerman's a flight risk. Arguably, he's not the type of person you need to hold over in a non-bondable fashion," Charles Rose, a professor at Florida's Stetson University College of Law
~
If they grant bail and put Zimmerman out on bond it might cause unrest again in the skittles community or physical action against him,, if his location becomes known................
Local 6 Orlando is reporting that Benjamin Crump said the Martin family is attending the hearing at the request of special prosecutor Angela Corey............
Local 6 Orlando is reporting that Benjamin Crump said the Martin family is attending the hearing at the request of special prosecutor Angela Corey............
D,if she is put on the witness stand and testifies, that the voice on the tape screaming was Trayvons...she will be asked on cross "did you also say ..you believed it was an accident,that got out of control?"..when we babbles around on the stand .. like she did trying to retract what she said the next day ...it won't be pretty ..
The ignorance of people in regards to the law is amazing to me. Even if they brought that up on cross and it wasn't objected to (which it would be), all she has to do is say, "That was an emotional statement made without having access to all the evidence. I thought it was the evidence that was supposed to decide a trial, not the emotional out cries of a mom who lost her sun. I'd hope the jury would be able to separate facts from random emotional statements."
But she won't have to worry about that because it will never get that far.
I wonder how many people on covers actually know what a fact really is.
D,if she is put on the witness stand and testifies, that the voice on the tape screaming was Trayvons...she will be asked on cross "did you also say ..you believed it was an accident,that got out of control?"..when we babbles around on the stand .. like she did trying to retract what she said the next day ...it won't be pretty ..
The ignorance of people in regards to the law is amazing to me. Even if they brought that up on cross and it wasn't objected to (which it would be), all she has to do is say, "That was an emotional statement made without having access to all the evidence. I thought it was the evidence that was supposed to decide a trial, not the emotional out cries of a mom who lost her sun. I'd hope the jury would be able to separate facts from random emotional statements."
But she won't have to worry about that because it will never get that far.
I wonder how many people on covers actually know what a fact really is.
I would object to that. Those are completely unrelated issues, one does not open the door to the other. She could testify on her expertise as to his voice on the tape. As to what exactly happened that night, she wasn't there and hasn't spoken to anyone that was. What could she possibly competently testify to? Her opinion, whether or not clarified, is no more admissible than my opinion or your opinion. It's not based on anything admissible.
I think it would be a big mistake for the prosecution to try and get her to testify. She is by no means a voice recognition expert and she is obviously biased. I just don't see the value in her doing that.
Then again, it appears that Corey really doesn't have any evidence anyway...
I would object to that. Those are completely unrelated issues, one does not open the door to the other. She could testify on her expertise as to his voice on the tape. As to what exactly happened that night, she wasn't there and hasn't spoken to anyone that was. What could she possibly competently testify to? Her opinion, whether or not clarified, is no more admissible than my opinion or your opinion. It's not based on anything admissible.
I think it would be a big mistake for the prosecution to try and get her to testify. She is by no means a voice recognition expert and she is obviously biased. I just don't see the value in her doing that.
Then again, it appears that Corey really doesn't have any evidence anyway...
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.