Originally posted by Judge Jude
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Thoughts on Trayvon and Zimmerman...
Collapse
X
-
"Igor, would you give me a hand with the bags?"
"Certainly. You take the blonde and I'll take the one in the turban!"
-
to those defending zimmerman, all i have to say is that there is a difference between an action being legal and it being moral. as i said in my first post, the jury has decided, so the "legality" of zimmerman's actions has been upheld.
but i would offer that it is immoral for him to have escalated the position of neighborhood watchman to arming himself and shooting martin. is martin completely innocent? probably not, but he shouldn't have paid for it with his life. it took two to tango here, and zimmerman was *more* than ready to tango, and brought the bigger weapon (gun > fist), and used it (legally, by the warped laws under which the action took place).
i didn't buy into the media hype on this. i read the reports though (as much as i could stomach to get what i thought was enough of the unbiased story). i don't see it as a race issue, or at least not primarily. regardless of race, someone like zimmerman should not be allowed to ride around in their vehicle with a weapon (loaded or not) just because they are assigned to be the neighborhood watchperson for the evening. down that road lies chaos."Instead of all of this energy and effort directed at the war to end drugs, how about a little attention to drugs which will end war?" Albert Hofmann
Comment
-
Originally posted by Long John View Post10 minutes?! I can barely pay attention to my wife for more than 30 seconds! How on earth would I pay attention to 10 minutes?!"Instead of all of this energy and effort directed at the war to end drugs, how about a little attention to drugs which will end war?" Albert Hofmann
Comment
-
Originally posted by bryanbutler View Postthere is a difference between an action being legal and it being moral.
Who gets to decide what is moral and what is not? It's a slippery slope, and we all need to understand that we are never going to agree with every law that this land has.
I'm not a Zimmerman defender, but he was acquitted by his peers. We need to accept that and move on in a direction that makes sense.
America, the land where no one is completely happy."Looks like I picked a bad day to give up sniffing glue.
- Steven McCrosky (Lloyd Bridges) in Airplane
i have epiphanies like that all the time. for example i was watching a basketball game today and realized pom poms are like a pair of tits. there's 2 of them. they're round. they shake. women play with them. thus instead of having two, cheerleaders have four boobs.
- nullnor, speaking on immigration law in AZ.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TopChuckie View PostIn 17 months, armed with the knowledge of all the witness statements and evidence, an entire team of educated and experienced prosecution lawyers couldn't come up with a clear, complete, concise theory/story of what went on that night. Yet all by himself, George Zimmerman provided a story only hours later that still makes sense and holds up in the face of all the witness statements and evidence, despite the fact he had no idea whatsoever who saw what, who knew what, or who would say what in the wake of that night. He did so 4-6 times without a lawyer and when confronted with the possibility of a video of the incident, he was relieved. What more proof could anyone ever need in order to believe he was not lying?
I watched or listened to almost every minute of the trial. I did not get my information from the media. Roto Rooter, I agree with everything you say regarding the case. Shame on the rest of you for contributing to the inflammation of the masses either because you don't know the facts of the case, or because you do and still want to propagate an agenda.
Fresno Bob, there are so many misstatements of fact/evidence in your last post, it's sad and disgusting.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Lucky View PostSworn testimony followed by cross-examination by the prosecution. That's what."Looks like I picked a bad day to give up sniffing glue.
- Steven McCrosky (Lloyd Bridges) in Airplane
i have epiphanies like that all the time. for example i was watching a basketball game today and realized pom poms are like a pair of tits. there's 2 of them. they're round. they shake. women play with them. thus instead of having two, cheerleaders have four boobs.
- nullnor, speaking on immigration law in AZ.
Comment
-
Originally posted by In the Corn View PostZimmerman played within the rules of the judicial arm of our government. Why put yourself into jeopardy when the government says you do not have to?
Comment
-
Lucky, I don't want to hijack the thread, but as a judge, I'm interested in your take in this hypothetical:
John Smith comes into your courtroom and is accused of a crime, doesn't take the stand and is acquitted by a jury. A couple of years later, he's back on in court for something else. Are you as the judge thinking. I hope I get the chance to right the previous wrong, or does he come in with a clean slate?"Looks like I picked a bad day to give up sniffing glue.
- Steven McCrosky (Lloyd Bridges) in Airplane
i have epiphanies like that all the time. for example i was watching a basketball game today and realized pom poms are like a pair of tits. there's 2 of them. they're round. they shake. women play with them. thus instead of having two, cheerleaders have four boobs.
- nullnor, speaking on immigration law in AZ.
Comment
-
Originally posted by In the Corn View PostLucky, I don't want to hijack the thread, but as a judge, I'm interested in your take in this hypothetical:
John Smith comes into your courtroom and is accused of a crime, doesn't take the stand and is acquitted by a jury. A couple of years later, he's back on in court for something else. Are you as the judge thinking. I hope I get the chance to right the previous wrong, or does he come in with a clean slate?"I lingered round them, under that benign sky: watched the moths fluttering among the heath and harebells, listened to the soft wind breathing through the grass, and wondered how any one could ever imagine unquiet slumbers for the sleepers in that quiet earth."
Comment
-
Originally posted by In the Corn View PostLucky, I don't want to hijack the thread, but as a judge, I'm interested in your take in this hypothetical:
John Smith comes into your courtroom and is accused of a crime, doesn't take the stand and is acquitted by a jury. A couple of years later, he's back on in court for something else. Are you as the judge thinking. I hope I get the chance to right the previous wrong, or does he come in with a clean slate?
And the fact is that I tried not to have any personal feelings, except feeling the importance of doing my job right and not making any mistakes.
One thing my clerk never really understood was the different approaches between the finding of guilty/not guilty and the sentencing in cases where there was a finding a guilt. In the first stage, you're doing only what I said above...determining whether the State has met its burden. Sentencing is a different animal. There, I could consider the defendant's past history or lack of history, the impact on the defendant and the victim, questions of fairness, justice, common sense, mercy and compassion.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mithrandir View PostWhy would the previous decision be wrong? If he was acquitted maybe he was innocent. You are presuming him to be guilty which is very wrong.
And I have had the same defendants show up in my court many times before. One guy was there nine times in eight years. But it has to be a clean slate every time.
As a prosecutor for a dozen years or so, I knew exactly what the State had to prove in every case. Sometimes it is almost like a checklist.
The hardest cases are ones in which you have to weigh the credibility of different witnesses. But you develop in that regard over time. I tried well over a thousand cases as a judge. You get to where you are more comfortable making that call.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Lucky View PostThey always come in with a clean slate, even if they have been convicted of the same crime before. The issue is whether the State, using evidence which is legally admissible, has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Judge's personal feelings cannot enter into the equation."Looks like I picked a bad day to give up sniffing glue.
- Steven McCrosky (Lloyd Bridges) in Airplane
i have epiphanies like that all the time. for example i was watching a basketball game today and realized pom poms are like a pair of tits. there's 2 of them. they're round. they shake. women play with them. thus instead of having two, cheerleaders have four boobs.
- nullnor, speaking on immigration law in AZ.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Lucky View PostSworn testimony followed by cross-examination by the prosecution. That's what.
Do you believe it was right for the prosecution to give up on trying to prove their case with facts and evidence and instead resort to simply winning the case at all costs by using emotion to try to convict one of our citizens? It is fine for a defense attorney to grasp at any straw and throw anything and everything against the wall in the hope it sticks and causes reasonable doubt, but it just feels patently and morally wrong for the state to take a win at all costs attitude to imprisoning our citizens. You think, despite his right to decline, he should have subjected himself to prosecutors that unethical? Not to mention the discovery violations.
Also, I'd love to hear your thoughts on bringing the entire Martin family in to hear 911 tapes TOGETHER and give their tainted opinions on whose voice was screaming, while also excluding law enforcement from the process. Similar to the method used to obtain Rachel Jeantel's statements. As a judge, you're good with all that too?
This was a political witch hunt, plain and simple. That is scary for all of us, no matter what color you are or what your opinion is on guns.
Judge(s), how many cases have you sat on where the chief investigating officer sided with the defense?Some people say winning isn't everything. I say those people never won anything.
Quitters never win, winners never quit, but those who never win AND never quit are idiots.
The last thing I want to do is hurt you...but it's still on the list.
Some people are like Slinkies, they are not really good for anything but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.
"...relentless inevitability of Yankee glory." - The Onion
Comment
-
Originally posted by In the Corn View PostSo shouldn't we, as private citizen, act the same way?"You know what's wrong with America? If I lovingly tongue a woman's nipple in a movie, it gets an "NC-17" rating, if I chop it off with a machete, it's an "R". That's what's wrong with America, man...."--Dennis Hopper
"One should judge a man mainly from his depravities. Virtues can be faked. Depravities are real." -- Klaus Kinski
Comment
-
Originally posted by In the Corn View PostSo shouldn't we, as private citizen, act the same way?
But back to the point. When I am making decisions in my day-to-day life, I don't have to follow the Rules of Evidence. That would be stupid. In my day-to-day life, I take all the information available to me, my own common sense and judgement, and any advice I can get from trusted friends, and then I make decisions.
A courtroom isn't real life. It bears almost no resemblance to real life. Anyone who tells you that a courtroom is a crucible in which we burn away impurities to get at the truth...has never been in a courtroom, or is just full of sh*t.
Comment
Comment