How were you able to do this when Treyvon was lying face down?
Why were you holding him down with both hands on his back, as the witnesses have told us?
“Face down” doesn’t literally mean that a person’s face is pressed into the ground. Treyvon’s head was turned to the side, so that one ear was on the ground and his face was pointed to the side.
That never happened. I leaned over him and I reached out to close his eyes. That’s all.
One weird effect of this is that I have to keep reminding myself that this isn’t the real thing, that despite this mock trial, there’s a very good chance that Zimmerman is actually guilty.
Of what?
Shoplifting.
Haha.
I was being serious. Assault? Manslaughter? First degree Murder?
Nothing that serious. Shooting an unarmed black kid, at most.
What does the prosecutor say?
You’re the one who said he was potentially guilty. When you said it, what did you think he was guilty of?
For pity’s sake. I’m not an attorney, so I don’t know the exact legal description of the crime of killin someone you oughtnt kill, but that’s what he might be guilty of. And your line of questioning is kind of ridiculous, and that’s my last word on this back-and-forth.
*Not to answer for LHOD, but the state thinks Zimmerman’s guilty of second degree murder; if the state can’t prove the hatred element, then perhaps Zimmerman’s guilty of manslaughter.
And I can’t tell you how pleased I am to hear that LHOD reads this thread and then has to remind himself that Zimmerman might actually be guilty.*
It really was a silly statement. There is a huge range of possibilities of different crimes.
Yes, but what makes his statement silly? He simply observed that reading this exchange put him in a frame of mind where he had to remind himself that Zimmerman was probably guilty. Meaning, as I take it, that his view of Zimmerman’s case in the real world left him believing that Zimmerman was probably guilty of one of those different crimes, but the faux-trial here left him feeling as though Zimmerman was not guilty. *
That’s not what I was asking. Obviously you will eventually stop asking questions. I’m just wondering if you will explicitly say so when you do. i.e. whether you will say something like “I have no further questions.”
Since the prosecution seems to have rested almost a week ago, does the jury have a verdict?
It seems that Stoid is around, just not in this tread. She posted today in Cafe.
If the prosecutor walks out mid trial, what happens?
The defense attorney proves his point-- which was that there is nothing inherently contradictory or incredible about Zimmerman’s story as we know it today. You may not believe it, but it is not flatly proven false by the evidence the public has thus far seen.
I agree.
Here’s what I said earlier to Stoid:
And her response:
I don’t see any glaring contradictions in the story, or aspects of it which are simply not credible.
Of course, Stoid should be given the opportunity to “sum up,” so to speak. i.e. to present an argument for why the testimony just doesn’t add up. It’s remotely possible that there is a subtle contradiction which is not obvious. But failing that, it would appear that Bricker’s point has been sustained.
Your honor, the Jury is hopelessly deadlocked. 3 members have taken the Way of the Dormouse and can’t be wakened. Another 3 have been irritated by the prosecutor and are going to vote “not guilty” just to spite her. Five decided that Z is guilty scum before the trial. The last one appears to be playing Galaga.