I guess that depends on what you are mixing it with......
I think those texts we didn't get to see would have been enlightening. But there are some available if you Google.
JMO
With respect, not TM's fear - his experience? IMO
Tell a totally different pic than what state is painting.I guess that depends on what you are mixing it with......
I think those texts we didn't get to see would have been enlightening. But there are some available if you Google.
JMO
What does this have to do with this case?
Weakest argument ever imo.
You didn't describe a hypothetical. You stated very clearly and simply that if it would keep you out of jail, you would punch yourself in the face. And you ended the post with the word: FACT. I would never try to put words in anyone's mouth. I simply responded to what you posted.
In some communities around StL you cannot wear your pants slung down so low (watching video from purchase of Skittles, AZ tea & blunts)
Wait - cracka' does not mean sex pervert IMHO (listening to closing arguments)
We see how this is going to go, they are basically going for the 17 year old/unarmed is dead, therefore GZ is guilty, regardless of evidence/circumstances.
What I would like to hear is this Prosecutor argue the points of fact in evidence. Not emotion.
Do you suppose that a jail sentence is *always and inevitably* just? And resisting jail is *always* dishonest? Nelson Mandela was jailed.
My friend, closing argument is all about emotion. IMHO
Just as an aside, this was one of the most shocking parts of her testimony for me. I can not conceive of any circumstance that would prevent me from immediately checking up on a friend (or an acquaintance, for that matter) who I believed to have been in a physical altercation with someone. Their phone would be ringing off the hook and if they didn't answer, I'd be on the other line to the police.
IIRC, he referred to him as a "17 year old man". I thought he was a child?