Skip to main content

View Diary: And if Zimmerman gets Convicted, Will there be a White Riot? (137 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  A couple of things. (4+ / 0-)

    First, Rachael Jeantel admitted that she lied under oath multiple times. Whether or not her lies were material to the case, it damages her credibility. The jury might even disregard her entire testimony. It doesn't matter what happened between George and his wife concerning bail. George was not charged with perjury, did not admit to perjury, and his wife is not a witness. Hell, the jury doesn't even know about it.

    And secondly, the state is not claiming that George stalked Trayvon, by the legal definition of stalking. Stalking is a specific crime that is not charged in this case.

    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

    by HairyTrueMan on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 10:32:20 AM PDT

    •  That's all true... (8+ / 0-)

      I only bring it up because the opposition goes on and on about the texts and youtube, which weren't admitted into evidence either.

      •  There are some serious assholes who support... (8+ / 0-)

        Zimmerman. No doubt about that. They go on and on about the "Scheme Team" of Parks and Crump and the stolen jewelry that was found in Trayvon's backpack. Then you have the slim jim that was allegedly found where Zimmerman says Trayvon was hiding in the bushes, the weed smoking and gun pictures and the suspensions and absentees from school. Etc., etc., etc...

        None of that has been admitted into evidence.

        At the same time, some of the left wing blogs discuss the perjury charges against Shellie Zimmerman, the restraining order taken against George, the alleged molestation of his cousin, his poor grades in school and his rejection from the VA police academy.

        Also not admitted into evidence.

        I tend to read TalkLeft regarding this case because Jeralyn does not allow such garbage and instead focuses on the legal elements of the case. Her coverage has been top notch, IMHO.

        If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

        by HairyTrueMan on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 10:57:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Not the 'legal' definition .... (0+ / 0-)

      but someone high up once had ketchup defined as a vegetable for 'legal' purposes to circumvent  good school lunches.  Reasonable folks could see thru the BS.

      Nothing changes without public pressure: public pressure doesn't happen without dissemination of knowledge and 'true' facts. Bit me FOX.

      by emsprater on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 11:34:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh, I'm not sure I'd buy (0+ / 0-)

      the idea that the jury doesn't know anything about this case from early on, through regular news coverage. Including the Zim-wife perjury and the weird back and forth over SYG (now being 'saved' by the defense, they say, for appeal if convicted).

      I had jury duty once, right after we moved here from another state and I'd gotten my new DL. Very inconvenient to have to take time off my job as a children's entertainer at a theme park at $250 a day, for $4 a day at the courthouse. During jury selection they asked if I knew anything about the case or knew the defendant, and of course I knew nothing at all except that the woman was charged with very nasty child abuse for letting her boyfriend abuse and pimp out her underage daughter, said boyfriend already in prison for the crimes. I was asked my opinion about such things generally, and I answered honestly - if I thought from evidence she was guilty, I'd throw the whole damned book without a qualm - I hate child abusers. They picked me anyway.

      The next day they sequestered us in a conference room while lawyers argued details with the judge, and I was rather shocked at my fellow jurors - all were a whole lot more familiar with the case than I was, and were uniformly ready to hang the woman before the trial even started. Visions of 12 Angry Men danced in my head, with me in Henry Fonda's role.

      Fortunately the defendant took a plea bargain before lunchtime and we were dismissed. I've never been called again, but it was interesting. At any rate, I certainly would not assume none of these jurors are familiar with the case. They can't judge on evidence never presented, but they can have opinions that will affect their judgment on what has been presented.

    •  Neither was Rachel Jeantel charged with (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:


      "Southern nights have you ever felt a southern night?" Allen Toussaint ~~Remember the Gulf of Mexico~~

      by rubyr on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 03:14:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And given the political aspects of this case, ... (0+ / 0-)

        she never will be, despite having actually admitted that she'd lied several times.

        "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

        by Neuroptimalian on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 04:52:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Indeed... (0+ / 0-)

        Rachel admitted she lied about several things in front of the jury. But they know nothing about Shellie's lies.

        If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

        by HairyTrueMan on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 10:08:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site