Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Why was one of the witnesses scheduled to testify NOT sequestered from previous testimony? Why did the prosecution not call a mistrial on this?
They had a hearing pertaining to that and the judge found it to be a non-issue.
Which is INSANE! How in the hell can a witness give an impartial, honest and non-biased testimony when they are hearing
others testify? The whole purpose of sequestering witnesses is to prevent such problems....that the judge throws out legal precedent's is just ONE of the major gaffs in this trial.
If Zimmerman is brought up on civil suit, and loses....will all his supporters howl like banshees while forgetting how they danced with glee when Simpson lost his civil suit?
The two cases are not the same, OJ was guilty, zimmerman is innocent. In any case, they probably wont win the civil suit, and there is a chance he may even get immunity from it.
You didn't answer the question. The evidence and witnesses could NOT prove Simpson was guilty, so how in the world can a "civil trial" state that he infringed on the victims rights when you could NOT prove he was there to commit the crime? As for "immunity" from a civil suit, how do you figure that? And remember, in a civil suit, Zimmerman would have to stand trial...and THAT given the evidence will NOT bode well for him.
Why has no Zimmerman supporter cried fowl regarding a woman doing 20 years for firing a NON-FATAL warning shot against her attacking, abusive ex-husband?
Did you ever stop to think that not every case is exactly the same? That there are different circumstances?
They share the "stand your ground" law as part of their defense (did YOU stop and think about that?) So why is it that the black folk can't stand their ground and use (or threaten the use of) deadly force?
She was not being attacked. Unlike zimmerman. She methodically went outside and went back inside after getting her gun. Her "warning shots" were probably just poorly aimed kill shots. She could have killed her kids.
She committed attempted murder.
You have just made a statement that leaves out a few facts, and then added your supposition and conjecture to that error. Here, for your education: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...s-20-Years-White-Man-Kills-And-Goes-Free-WTF#
The “criminal,” the woman sentenced to 20 years of hard time on May 11, was his wife, Marissa Alexander, five feet, two inches tall and slight enough, as Gray mentioned in his pre-trial deposition, that on two occasions he tossed her from their house without much physical exertion. “She’s a little person so it doesn’t take much for me to pick her up and tote her out my front door . . . You know, I pretty much picked her up and throwed her out.”
“I honestly think she just didn’t want me to put my hands on her anymore so she did what she feel like she have to do to make sure she wouldn’t get hurt, you know. You know, she did what she had to do.”
He said, “The gun was never actually pointed at me. When she raised the gun down and raised it up, you know, the gun was never pointed at me. The fact is, you know . . . she never been violent toward me. I was always the one starting it. If she was violent toward me, it was because she was trying to get me up off her or stop me from doing.”
Let me ask
YOU a question, if you think the cases are exactly the same, why do you not defend zimmerman? You can't have it both ways. You can't act as if they are analogous but then defend one and not the other.
