The George Zimmerman Case!

-Clayton Bigsby

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#3272 Jun 21, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
You seemed to think it was quite witty when you wrote it about him, didn't ya Blanche?
Yep. ONCE. Not 14 times like you...that's a sign of serious childishness and not too much in the smarts department.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Hightstown, NJ

#3273 Jun 21, 2013
GlitterSucks wrote:
<quoted text>Despite our "tiff", Reader knows when I'm pissed and when I'm sincere. As much as we disagree, if she needed something, I would be there. She knows that. Poking fun and being truly mean are too totally different things.
Seems she had a different opinion.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Hightstown, NJ

#3274 Jun 21, 2013
RU_Kiddingme wrote:
<quoted text>
Why didn't she go to John Carroll, UD, or Xavier?
Are you saying that girls don't need to be as well-educated as boys? Are you hoping she can snag a man? She's probably going to end up with an Agricultural Studies major at OSU? After he tries to milk her.
Personally, I don't think kids should be mentioned in these posts. There are just some lines that shouldn't be crossed. Both sides have done it, but I dunno...something just doesn't sit right with me when kids are brought into the mix.

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Hightstown, NJ

#3275 Jun 21, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
I am also alive.
But I am not a flood surviver--get it?
I don't think he will. Hasn't thus far. I hope no one ever says anything about attending a memorial service or remember those who lost their lives in Boston - they'll be accused of saying they're a survivor.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#3276 Jun 21, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
<quoted text>Yep. ONCE. Not 14 times like you...that's a sign of serious childishness and not too much in the smarts department.
Poor Georgie thinks he sets the rules here.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#3277 Jun 21, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
<quoted text>Yep. ONCE. Not 14 times like you...that's a sign of serious childishness and not too much in the smarts department.
By the way, 3.1, if you only said it ONCE why does the quote start with "And once again..."?

-Clayton Bigsby

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#3278 Jun 21, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor Georgie thinks he sets the rules here.
Snagging my lines...that's all you've got left.
Che's going out on her belly...

-Clayton Bigsby

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#3279 Jun 21, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way, 3.1, if you only said it ONCE why does the quote start with "And once again..."?
Well, then I suggest you take a count of them...that ought to keep you occupied.
Wait what

Galion, OH

#3280 Jun 21, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
Update (on Zimmerman) from this AM.
There was a wrangle between the defense and the judge about admitting some documents for consideration in the Frye hearing (to determine the admissibility of the audiology expert testimony).
Both of the defense attorneys have shown a propensity for arguing with the judge when she issues rulings--I cannot imagine than is helpful to them. This morning she ended up explaining to the defense how a judge's decision (on the Frye hearing) is different from a jury's decision--particularly regarding the evidence that she is allowed to consider. Sounded like Courtroom Procedure 101 to me.
However, there was a more glaring error that cropped up yesterday. The Frye hearing has featured testimony from several learned people who seemed to enjoy explaining what it is that they do and how they do it. Pretty boring stuff. A really intellectualized pissing contest.
However, one of the defense experts was asked to give an opinion on a report allegedly produced by a prosecution expert (he called it gibberish). On cross examination yesterday it became apparent that the prosecution expert did not produce the report and was totally unfamiliar with it. A bit of comedy as the defense attorney held the report up to the skype camera for the out of town witness.
Followed a clear two-point summary by the prosecution and a rambling bunch of stuff (beginning with bemoaning the lack of time they had to work on this) by the defense.
End of the day, the hearing was to establish whether or not the methodology used by the experts was new and novel or accepted by the field. The defense experts largely testified that the methodology has been in use for years and is widely accepted, but that they disagreed with the findings.
But, it looks like the defense is in trouble for reasons beyond the case at hand. They seem to be floundering.
Because you have been proven a liar on this thread, who cares what you think as an interested observer?

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Hightstown, NJ

#3281 Jun 21, 2013
gokeefe wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently, you've never been in a relationship where there was truly a commitment. That is why you gain and solicit that kind of support George was talking about. Some people do take their commitments seriously, I did for nearly 25 years, and I welcomed all the support I got from family, friends, and a priest for counsel, advice, and emotional support.
Alcoholic parents possibly can be traumatic for young children. It is not necessarily a rule. Not all alcoholics are abusive towards others.(My own father was an alcoholic, and yet he was not an abusive person.) Your thinking is well, slim to none, no depth.
I happened to re-read this and just noticed how eager you are just to be argumentative. In my comment, I said "an alcoholic parent CAN be traumatic." I never said it was a rule, I never expressed it as an absolute. I also never said all alcoholics are abusive. They aren't, but ALL alcoholics are abusive to themselves. The fact that George had the ability to understand what I was trying to convey and you didn't just goes to show that you're just looking for an argument. Sorry to hear about your father, that's unfortunate.
d pantz

Los Angeles, CA

#3283 Jun 21, 2013
What a lame thread. Who wants to read ches mindless off topic insults?
Wait what

Galion, OH

#3284 Jun 21, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
Update (on Zimmerman) from this AM.
There was a wrangle between the defense and the judge about admitting some documents for consideration in the Frye hearing (to determine the admissibility of the audiology expert testimony).
Both of the defense attorneys have shown a propensity for arguing with the judge when she issues rulings--I cannot imagine than is helpful to them. This morning she ended up explaining to the defense how a judge's decision (on the Frye hearing) is different from a jury's decision--particularly regarding the evidence that she is allowed to consider. Sounded like Courtroom Procedure 101 to me.
However, there was a more glaring error that cropped up yesterday. The Frye hearing has featured testimony from several learned people who seemed to enjoy explaining what it is that they do and how they do it. Pretty boring stuff. A really intellectualized pissing contest.
However, one of the defense experts was asked to give an opinion on a report allegedly produced by a prosecution expert (he called it gibberish). On cross examination yesterday it became apparent that the prosecution expert did not produce the report and was totally unfamiliar with it. A bit of comedy as the defense attorney held the report up to the skype camera for the out of town witness.
Followed a clear two-point summary by the prosecution and a rambling bunch of stuff (beginning with bemoaning the lack of time they had to work on this) by the defense.
End of the day, the hearing was to establish whether or not the methodology used by the experts was new and novel or accepted by the field. The defense experts largely testified that the methodology has been in use for years and is widely accepted, but that they disagreed with the findings.
But, it looks like the defense is in trouble for reasons beyond the case at hand. They seem to be floundering.
Crump is in the news media this afternoon crying foul as far as the jury goes. Sharpton is now involved, too, saying the jury goes against them because the jury is not comprised of peers and the process needs to be questioned.

If the defense is in trouble and floundering, why are Crump and Sharpton running to the media talking about race and questioning the selection of the jury?

-Clayton Bigsby

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#3285 Jun 21, 2013
I_Am_Sybil wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, he got the "Questions about George" thread removed. What a Nancyboy.
I'll just have to answer the questions about George in this thread. Does anyone want to know why he was asked to leave Bridgewater State after only a semester and a half?
I didn't get a damned thing removed, Torchy. And spare us not only your idiotic second name, but your Google trip across New England.
Wait what

Galion, OH

#3286 Jun 21, 2013
Prosecutors can argue in opening statements that George Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martin based on factors such as age or clothing before he shot the unarmed 17-year-old, but they cannot say he was profiled based on race, a judge ruled Friday.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/prosecutor...

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#3287 Jun 21, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
I am also alive.
But I am not a flood surviver--get it?
You're NOT??????

-Clayton Bigsby

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#3288 Jun 21, 2013
Wait what wrote:
Prosecutors can argue in opening statements that George Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martin based on factors such as age or clothing before he shot the unarmed 17-year-old, but they cannot say he was profiled based on race, a judge ruled Friday.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/prosecutor...
Unbeliveable. Nelson wants a conviction as much as Reader does. The fix is in...and now out in the open.
Wait what

Galion, OH

#3289 Jun 21, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
Update (on Zimmerman) from this AM.
There was a wrangle between the defense and the judge about admitting some documents for consideration in the Frye hearing (to determine the admissibility of the audiology expert testimony).
Both of the defense attorneys have shown a propensity for arguing with the judge when she issues rulings--I cannot imagine than is helpful to them. This morning she ended up explaining to the defense how a judge's decision (on the Frye hearing) is different from a jury's decision--particularly regarding the evidence that she is allowed to consider. Sounded like Courtroom Procedure 101 to me.
However, there was a more glaring error that cropped up yesterday. The Frye hearing has featured testimony from several learned people who seemed to enjoy explaining what it is that they do and how they do it. Pretty boring stuff. A really intellectualized pissing contest.
However, one of the defense experts was asked to give an opinion on a report allegedly produced by a prosecution expert (he called it gibberish). On cross examination yesterday it became apparent that the prosecution expert did not produce the report and was totally unfamiliar with it. A bit of comedy as the defense attorney held the report up to the skype camera for the out of town witness.
Followed a clear two-point summary by the prosecution and a rambling bunch of stuff (beginning with bemoaning the lack of time they had to work on this) by the defense.
End of the day, the hearing was to establish whether or not the methodology used by the experts was new and novel or accepted by the field. The defense experts largely testified that the methodology has been in use for years and is widely accepted, but that they disagreed with the findings.
But, it looks like the defense is in trouble for reasons beyond the case at hand. They seem to be floundering.
Or, here's a better wrap-up:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerma...

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#3290 Jun 21, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
apparently you need to re-read what I said. I said THIS thread. Fail.
You should call the mods out on me then, since I posted something in one thread that I saw in another.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#3291 Jun 21, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
There have been a lot of events in the world that have taken lives. Do you refer to yourself as a survivor of those events just because they happened and even though you weren't there?
No, but then, I wouldn't recount the event leaving the impression that I was there when I wasn't either.

“Where did I put my tiara?”

Since: Dec 11

Columbus, OH

#3292 Jun 21, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Now don't go putting words in my mouth.
Yes, you have had moments of candor and sympathy. But I wouldn't go so far as to claim you are someone I could rely on if I needed something.
If I was being attacked by a gang of Topix bullies, for example--would you offer rational mediation, or pile on?
To be honest it depends what the subject was and your slant. And yes, you could rely on me if you personally needed something...I'm not that evil.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Girl shot in the back on Columbus' Near East Side 8 min fat tired old and... 18
5 living ex-presidents attend Texas hurricane r... 58 min fat tired old and... 4
300 dead in Somalia blast 1 hr 404 not found 22
Trump 666 Arrival 1 hr fat tired old and... 2
News Eight Somali store operators charged in food-st... (May '10) 1 hr Nothing grows 108
Christmas Will Win! 1 hr Duke for Mayor 21
Fox renewed O'Reilly's contract after he paid a... 1 hr BizzyBee 1
The Hill: FBI Finds Evidence of Russian Bribery... 5 hr Duke for Mayor 66

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages