TexasCHLforum.com

philip964 wrote:http://mobile.chron.com/chron/db_311105 ... d=TCTEw8VE

U S Attorney in Beaumont under scrutiny for posts made on his Facebook page concerning Obama and Trayvon Martin.

In one post he correctly lists Trayvon's purchases at the convience store, the article then repeats the items but incorrectly says Arizona Ice Tea.

Apparently he also believes in stand your ground.

ScooterSissy wrote:

Bullitt wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:...Exactly which action of Zimmerman's were "unjustifited"? Zimmerman said...

Oh, did Zimmerman testify? My bad

See if you can tell the difference between these two:

Zimmerman said
Zimmerman testified

No, Zimmerman did not testify. He did exactly what I claimed he did, he said he did not confront. Then the prosecution submitted that statement as evidence. There was no evidece that disputed that, but plenty that supported it.

But, I agree with you, it's "your bad". You keep making that claim, that he confronted, with absolutely nothing to back it up.

VMI77 wrote:

Rrash wrote:This is my first post on this thread, and I'm too lazy to read all 132 pages to see if this has been discussed, but here is my question to those of you who understand Florida law better than I:

The DA charged Zimmerman with 2nd degree homicide, not a hate crime. 1. Why doesn't the judge throw out the racially charged testimony, since even the DA felt this was a case of murder, not a crime committed motivated by racism. Isn't the judge responsible for keeping irrelevant testimony out of the courtroom? 2. Why doesn't the defense object every time even a small suggestion of racism as a motive is brought up? The jury should be clearly told this is not a question of whether Zimmerman was racist, racially profiled, etc., but a question as to whether he committed murder.

Again, maybe I'm not looking at this correctly, but I have wondered this all week.

Because it's a political trial seeking "social justice" and has nothing to do with the actual law.

Rrash wrote:This is my first post on this thread, and I'm too lazy to read all 132 pages to see if this has been discussed, but here is my question to those of you who understand Florida law better than I:

The DA charged Zimmerman with 2nd degree homicide, not a hate crime. 1. Why doesn't the judge throw out the racially charged testimony, since even the DA felt this was a case of murder, not a crime committed motivated by racism. Isn't the judge responsible for keeping irrelevant testimony out of the courtroom? 2. Why doesn't the defense object every time even a small suggestion of racism as a motive is brought up? The jury should be clearly told this is not a question of whether Zimmerman was racist, racially profiled, etc., but a question as to whether he committed murder.

Again, maybe I'm not looking at this correctly, but I have wondered this all week.

dubya wrote:The left continues to try to make this more than it is, to put self defense on trial. The President of the "National Urban League" says

"Everything else about this case is complicated by the issues of race, the unsuccessful attempt by Zimmerman’s defense to put Trayvon’s background on trial and Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense that is rooted in Florida’s questionable Stand-Your-Ground law."

and they continue to try to demonize targeted racial groups.

"It should also be noted that Zimmerman, a white Hispanic, was a particularly zealous neighborhood watch volunteer. In the months leading up to that fateful February day, he had made dozens of 911 calls. In a number of those calls, he reported spotting "suspicious" persons in the neighborhood, almost all of whom were black."

http://www.hvpress.net/news/153/ARTICLE ... 06-12.html

Is it going to be hard for Zimmerman to get a fair trial? And, if he does and wins, at what cost to civil unrest? Only thing we know for sure is this thing is a mess. "White Hispanic"? [in no way being negative about great, hardworking, family oriented Hispanics] I guess that is a Republican Hispanic....