I find it more humorous people 3000 miles away in California are rioting while there is hardly a peep in the the area the verdict was handed down.
Anyone else find humor in seeing some of the riot coverage that shows black cops man handling unruly TM supporters?
If there's rioting to be done what better place than Kalifornia? Less chance that someone is going to be armed and able to defend themselves:hmm:I find it more humorous people 3000 miles away in California are rioting while there is hardly a peep in the the area the verdict was handed down.
The prosecutors are continuing to attack GZ, continuing to re-try the case in public.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/prosecut...ew-claim-he-lacked-courage-to-take-the-stand/
The prosecutors are continuing to attack GZ, continuing to re-try the case in public.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/prosecut...ew-claim-he-lacked-courage-to-take-the-stand/
Statisticaly a 6 women jury has 1 chance over 64 to occur ,
1.5625% chance, if ever they are randomly selected over
the eligible population , actualy , a jury composed uniquely
of blacks and hispanos is equaly probable at 1/64 of a chance.
I must have missed something about the rules to select a jury
in this good ole fascist florida..
Statisticaly a 6 women jury has 1 chance over 64 to occur ,
1.5625% chance, if ever they are randomly selected over
the eligible population , actualy , a jury composed uniquely
of blacks and hispanos is equaly probable at 1/64 of a chance.
I must have missed something about the rules to select a jury
in this good ole fascist florida..
The prosecutors are continuing to attack GZ, continuing to re-try the case in public.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/prosecut...ew-claim-he-lacked-courage-to-take-the-stand/
You should take this up with the prosecution. There was a black male potential juror that the defense wanted but the prosecution rejected. They rejected him because he made statements that showed he wasn't brainwashed by the media's story about what happened.
Haha! You go to court to win, period.
Come on, you know they wouldn't do an interview with anyone that would ask real questions of them:hmm:I wish one of these interviewers would have the balls to ask why they subverted the grand jury process.
The prosecutors are continuing to attack GZ, continuing to re-try the case in public.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/prosecut...ew-claim-he-lacked-courage-to-take-the-stand/
Come on, you know they wouldn't do an interview with anyone that would ask real questions of them:hmm:
Agree...it was the black and hispanic part that was way off. There's no way they could have similar probablities.
I wish one of these interviewers would have the balls to ask why they subverted the grand jury process.
His statements about the incident were already there for all to see, he made several freely prior to the trial and had nothing further to add. The idiot prosecutors had no evidence and were just hoping to try and make him look bad, not giving them that chance is smartI don't think it's wrong to attack him for not taking the stand. He's a gutless coward, without question.
What would be interesting is to know what you base your knowledge of the American justice system on? Seems like you don't know jack, yet feel compelled to post your mindless drivel anyway:\Was you ratio the one of florida..?...
If it s the case the probability of a black/latino jury
collapse to 1/245 of a chance , but still , the women
ratio in this jury is quite surprising , it would be very
interesting , statisticaly speaking , to know what is
the average age and wealth class.
It wasn't a capital (death penalty) offense..."infamous" may be arguable since I don't know the intent behind that but the capital part is probably part of why they didn't go for murder 1, it's not like they let a lack of evidence keep them from itI thought the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution says felony charges HAD to go to a grand jury before a trial? Maybe Don Vito Corleone can give us some insight into this issue?
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
I find it more humorous people 3000 miles away in California are rioting while there is hardly a peep in the the area the verdict was handed down.
His statements about the incident were already there for all to see, he made several freely prior to the trial and had nothing further to add. The idiot prosecutors had no evidence and were just hoping to try and make him look bad, not giving them that chance is smart
I previously gave US percentages. Florida percentages are 51.1% women, 16.6% black, and 23.2% hispanic/latino.Was you ratio the one of florida..?...
If it s the case the probability of a black/latino jury
collapse to 1/245 of a chance , but still , the women
ratio in this jury is quite surprising , it would be very
interesting , statisticaly speaking , to know what is
the average age and wealth class.
Actually they did have evidence, plenty of it. In hindsight, the mistake the prosecution made was overreaching in their charges. They should have charged him with assault, manslaughter, criminal negligence, or stalking. The self defense wall was too great to be scaled.
Actually they did have evidence, plenty of it. In hindsight, the mistake the prosecution made was overreaching in their charges. They should have charged him with assault, manslaughter, criminal negligence, or stalking. The self defense wall was too great to be scaled.
LOL...self defense knocked out manslaughter at the trial already, the other things you have listed are just laughable, only evidence of assault is by TM, nothing GZ did can be classified as stalking and criminal negligence would require him to criminally negligent (duh) which didn't happen either. Your critical thinking skills are very lacking, you would make an excellent commentator on CNN or one of the other liberal BS "news" stationsActually they did have evidence, plenty of it. In hindsight, the mistake the prosecution made was overreaching in their charges. They should have charged him with assault, manslaughter, criminal negligence, or stalking. The self defense wall was too great to be scaled.