Saturday, July 13, 2013

NOT GUILTY!

Can't hardly believe it!

15 comments:

  1. I'm gobsmacked.

    It's nice to see the jury wasn't intimidated into manslaughter or a retrial because of the threats from the NBPs and other assorted yo-yos.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Me too lady red, when the jury asked the judge a "manslaughter" question today I felt it was sure to be a guilty verdict of that at least.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Maybe the country will recover after the messiahs attempts to destroy it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Aridog got it right, all the way down the line.

    This was a just verdict. Kudos to the jury for not being intimidated and taking the time to make the right decision.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Ari called it. What he predicted is what I thought should happen, but cynically predicted would not. I've found it hard to be too cynical lately; apparently I succeeded in this instance.

      Delete
    2. Yay me! :D [And I am not surprised in the least...I was holding a pocket pair of aces and the flop had 2 more aces.]

      Actually, it nigh on impossible to be more cynical than me, however, in this case I simply decided "too cute" couldn't win...if the jury had an IQ over room temperature, which I was sure they did. All the jurors had to do, after considering the law and scant culpability evidence, was to image themselves, alone, on a dark rainy night and being assaulted.

      Yep, there are madz to go round in government circles, as well as Trademark circles...oh, my the cash cow just got kilt!

      Delete
  5. I'm very surprised. I suppose this explains the near-frantic judge's outburst of the other day.

    Look for the Feds to step in now and argue that as the head of the Neighborhood Watch he was acting under the color of law and, thus, subject to Federal charges, double jeopardy be damned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it's more likely the jurors' names will leak and the media will be happy to spread it. Their lives will be ruined.

      The government/media complex tried to ensure a kind of reverse jury nullification here - tried to make it impossible for a non-white juror to acquit. This is why I predicted a hung jury.

      I think the gov/media complex has madz tonight, but not against Z. Madz will be directed at the "traitors". They were the weak link and it is they who must be made an example.

      Delete
  6. This is absolutely brilliant! I've been following the trial on and off from here and I too was sure it would be at least a manslaughter verdict.

    Well done to the jury! And the judge and MSM ought to be ashamed of themselves.

    Prof. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection has covered the trial extensively from the very beginning. Worth a read.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Professor Jacobson and Andrew Branca did a great job...and I watched the entire trial on live feed without idiot commentators.

      The reason was this: this trial was about a man doing something I've done countless times annually for over 40+ years. Situational awareness is necessary in a community...you must look out for each other. MY community is an old urban one, no gates, just your basic pre and post WWII streets with homes on them. Just in the past month I've followed strangers who just weren't passing through in a normal fashion, heads swiveling 180 degrees left and right, slowing down and checking out homes and driveways. You can tell if they are checking addresses or if its more up the driveway. We have the best police department in Michigan, bar none...so a call gets near instant response. However, there is always the chance they are busy elsewhere and you are on your own. This trial was about a concern of mine...is it necessary to kill all witnesses or not?

      Delete
  7. I'm hearing rumblings that Holder may bring federal civil rights charges.

    Here we go again. This is NOT a civil rights case; Zimmerman would've followed anyone in a hoodie skulking around his neighborhood, regardless of color. Said hoodie-thug would've challenged the creepy guy following him around, and hoodie-thug would have been shot in the ensuing fight. End of story.

    I don't like Zimmerman. He made a very bad decision, and an unarmed teenager is dead (even if he was thug). This case will not go away, not with the media repeatedly showing pics of a young baby-faced TM instead of the full-grown young "gansta" he was; add in the "skittles and tea" stuff and poof! Thug-in-a-hoodie transforms into an angelic young child with a halo, a sweet smile, and the whole world as his oyster.

    Bah.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Holder will bring civil rights charges if he wants Obama's approval numbers to slip further down into the 30's.

    At least, that's what Miss Cleo predicts :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL! Miss Cleo is certainly prescient! Numbers in the 30s sound good to me. :))

      Delete
  9. Here's an interesting blog post by a Florida lawyer.

    It highlights just how uninformed people are about our legal system, and how the media is shallow to the point of downright evil. :D

    And yes. I DID steal it from Hot Air. Bwahahaha!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. lady Red...you said earlier:

      I don't like Zimmerman. He made a very bad decision, ...

      Would that be like how most of your own neighbors might react to wandering strangers? You mentioned something along those lines a while ago when some federal contracted poll taker or whatever showed up at your door.

      You cited lawyer Brian Tannebaum ... who says weasel worded crap like:

      ... I think it's terrible that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin. That's a tragedy. I don't think he had to shoot him, and had one or two things been different (he didn't get out of his car, didn't have a gun, ...), ... I keep hearing Trayvon Martin would have killed George Zimmerman, I don't think so, but I wasn't there.

      Yeah, he's right, he wasn't there and denies rebuttal by saying you weren't there either. Weasel. Period. One I'd bet has never been in a fist fight let alone lost one. He seems to assume your are entitled, actually required, to get your face battered and head bludgeoned, as the evidence indicates for those who weren't there, and just take it.

      A resident is god damned well entitled to be out of his car or dwelling in his own neighborhood and he is damn well entitled to have a gun. If a suspicious person who he has lost track of nearly 4 minutes earlier, while already on the phone to police, suddenly appears and assaults him, battering his head and face bloody...and gets shot for that act, it is NOT a tragedy, it is survival.

      That is still a right for people here who are NOT violating a law by being out and about in their own neighborhood for whatever reason. If you come under the apprehension that your life is in danger...etc. you are entitled to defend it. Period.

      I'd not hire that jackass lawyer to make a small claims court statement. This case is not about what law allows, or the morality of it all, it is about a man defending himself. Six level headed women juros got it right. What scares me is how many level headed people believe the bullshit guys like lawyer Tannebaum say.

      It is guys like him who inspire the kill all the witnesses mentality.



      Delete