Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Recent Comments
- Tel on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Petit_Barde on Ellen Flees To The UK
- dm on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Gamecock on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on The End Of Polar Bears
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Richard E Fritz on HUD Climate Advisor
- Richard E Fritz on Ellen Flees To The UK
Prosecution Says That Zimmerman Just “Assumed” That His Head Was Being Beaten
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
I’ve almost come to the conclusion that the prosecution is actually priming the prospective rioters for action. I’ve never heard so much preposterous speculation coming from a single source before. Much of it has no link to reality at all.
The politicized prosecutors are a bunch of spineless wimps. They should never have brought charges in the first place, but did so to placate Eric Holder’s Department of Jerkoffs. What these PC wimps are doing is setting up the strawman of a “fair” trial replete with a “Judge” who leans over backwards for the prosecution, knowing full well that they don’t want to deal personally with the repercussions of acquittal. They’re afraid of the reaction of that most noble segment of our society–the Jesse Jacksons, Al Sharptons, and Barack Obamas–and those easily enflamed by their words. In the meantime, the government will be able to point at the jury for blame. If I was a member of that 6 woman jury, I’d beg my husband to go out and buy a 9mm Glock or a Sig Sauer, and keep it on the hip for the next few months.
“If I was a member of that 6 woman jury, I’d beg my husband to go out and buy a 9mm Glock or a Sig Sauer, and keep it on the hip for the next few months.”
For sure.
It’s necessary to show that America is still a racist country, so George must go to jail. Anything to keep blacks from taking responsibility for their lives and keeping fascist Democrats in power.
What a pathetic argument this leftist drip is making.
There have been a few times during the trial when I suspected that Bernie has Tourette’s Syndrome.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
The Chicago Seven
Hey Nik. Where you been? Now I say *Nik* kind of like Seinfeld said “Newman.” I assume you’re back to make a bigger effort now to win the war against the climate loons. As far as The Chicago Seven, I read the wikipedia on that, and I’m having a hard time seeing the parallel to this Zimmerman affair. Of course I just assume that The Chicago Seven comparison is subtle and profound and way above my pay grade.
I have never liked the adversarial system, where each side tries, by hook or crook or emotional acting, to win their side of the “debate” over the guilt or innocence of the accused, rather than getting all the definitive facts out to get to the truth. And I use the term “debate” because I also don’t like debates, for the same reason. Getting to the truth is my only desire, and competition for its own sake is pointless (and inherently, irretrievably, stupid). So civilization today, with its “civilized debate”, is too often childish and incompetent (as has been the climate science debate). Of course others will only say, debate, or “competition of ideas”, is not pointless, but leads to “consensus”. So let me just add “damn the consensus” to my list of vulgar atrocities.
“I have never liked the adversarial system, where each side tries, by hook or crook or emotional acting, to win their side of the “debate” over the guilt or innocence of the accused, rather than getting all the definitive facts out to get to the truth.”
What you have described is not the adversarial system of justice at all, but an utter perversion and obscenity. I defy you to produce a single source that defines “adversarial system” this way in a justicial context.
You seem not to understand that there is a difference between what something is and how its interior enemies (who are supposed to be upholding it) try to portray it, i.e. as an utter mockery of its true self.
How would you like it if I wrote, “I have never liked the scientific method, wherein each scientist tries, by hook or crook or emotional acting, to win their side of the “debate” over the truth or falsehood of a proposition about nature.” Is that a fair characterization, or just a calumny!?
RTF
You Harry apparently have missed the history of Western Civilization. The left is Perfecting the Governmant of the USA: Perfecting Democracy which is the stage just before collapse. Corrupting the courts is part and parcel of their macinations.
You might be interested in reading the following: http://henrymakow.com/2013/07/Covert-Attack-on-Jury-System.html
http://henrymakow[dot]com/2013/07/Covert-Attack-on-Jury-System%5Bdot%5Dhtml
Dan Kurt
Harry– The Napoleonic system does have some advantages. For one thing (as I understand it), judges are not bound to observe precedent. If a judge thinks precedent is wrong, he writes his own verdict. And for another thing there’s much less of this adversarial crap. The judge uses his own investigating team to find out the facts of the case, so the prosecution and the defense each have a lesser influence on the proceedings.
Our system is perfectly suited to the American character. One side lies to convict, the other side lies to acquit. The more eloquent team normally wins. So in practise this usually means whoever can afford the best lawyers gets off. Poor folks are normally convicted and sent away with little access to appeals. One gets the justice he can afford.
Both systems can be subject to horrible abuses. Obviously the only thing guaranteeing a fair trial is good faith on the part of all. For which there’s never a guarantee.
But I do like one other thing about the Napoleonic Code. That is, that an escaping prisoner has the duty to escape, while the jailer has the duty to catch him. Thus no extra time is tacked on to a recaptured prisoner’s sentence.
It’s noted elsewhere here that the judge has widened the possibilities to include a manslaughter charge– which I think is a good thing. If I were on that jury I don’t think I’d find a predominance of evidence he was guilty of Murder Two. But it would be a travesty to allow him to get off clean. I would convict on manslaughter.
There I disagree. It’s a travesty they didn’t start with the manslaughter charge, thus if I were on the jury, I’d ignore the late addition and vote to acquit.
The late addition means that the prosecution knows they did not prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt. And allowing the prosecution to add the manslaughter charge at the very end just guarantees an appeal.
Since the defense was not presenting their case against the manslaughter charge from the beginning, allowing the late addition is, in my opinion, an abuse of process.
The jury should just vote to acquit, and end this political farce.
Why would it be a travesty to allow him to get off clean, all the man did was defend himself? He should not have been charged in the first place.
Exactly, in fact none of Zimmerman’s testimony was discredited. This should never have gone to trial.
The judge asked Zimmerman if he wanted to testify on his own behalf, BEFORE the Defense rested. His attorney objected and the judge “overruled”, not once but twice. This is NOT how it is supposed to work.
Then on the closing arguments, she allowed the Prosecution their time, then adjourned until the next day. This tactic doesn’t allow the Defense to rebut what the Prosecution said.
I’m sure NikFromNYC is aware Judicial Watch obtained documents from the DOJ exposing their direct involvement in organizing protests, marches and putting pressure on the DA to prosecute the case, including getting the sheriff removed from office.
Of course there is the judge allowing the jury to consider lesser charges.
This is a kangaroo court if there ever was one.
Maybe the black robes a judge wears should be referred to a “kangaroo suit” from hereafter.
I hope I’m never frog-marched in front of a judge, the temptation to ask where he keeps his kangaroo suit might get the better of me.
“This is a kangaroo court if there ever was one.”
Exactly right.
Steven,
I followed the link that you provided, and actually did RTFA. Your headline misrepresented what was in the article. Yes, the prosecution did accuse Mr Z was of making assumptions (among other things), but not the one that your headline suggests. This particular off-the-wall headline simply cannot be taken at face value.
I’m guessing that you were attempting sarcasm. Fine. In the future, please label sarcasm as such. A lot of crazy stuff happens in the world. And your headline is sufficiently crazy that it could be true.