HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Zimmerman Laughs In Court...

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 12:20 PM

Zimmerman Laughs In Court At Deadly Force Testimony

In his trial for the murder of slain teen Trayvon Martin on Wednesday, former neighborhood watchmen George Zimmerman found a moment of levity during testimony about when it was appropriate to use deadly force.

--CLIP
“It’s imminent injury,” Carter explained. “Or imminent fear. So the fact alone that there isn’t an injury doesn’t necessarily mean that the person did not have a real apprehension of fear. The fact that there were injuries have a tendency to show or support that that person had a reasonable apprehension of fear.”

“You don’t have to wait until you’re almost dead until you can defend yourself?” West asked.

“No, I would advise you probably don’t do that,” Carter replied.

That response prompted several seconds of laughter from the usually-emotionless Zimmerman before he was able to look downward to regain his composure.



MORE...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/03/zimmerman-laughs-in-court-at-deadly-force-testimony/

63 replies, 4327 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 63 replies Author Time Post
Reply Zimmerman Laughs In Court At Deadly Force Testimony (Original post)
Purveyor Jul 2013 OP
JustAnotherGen Jul 2013 #1
kudzu22 Jul 2013 #6
magical thyme Jul 2013 #60
Maximumnegro Jul 2013 #13
JustAnotherGen Jul 2013 #15
avebury Jul 2013 #20
dmr Jul 2013 #59
ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2013 #2
pipi_k Jul 2013 #9
HappyMe Jul 2013 #3
Myrina Jul 2013 #4
Lurks Often Jul 2013 #8
Myrina Jul 2013 #12
ChiciB1 Jul 2013 #17
Lurks Often Jul 2013 #19
uppityperson Jul 2013 #24
Lurks Often Jul 2013 #26
uppityperson Jul 2013 #27
Lurks Often Jul 2013 #29
uppityperson Jul 2013 #31
Lurks Often Jul 2013 #37
uppityperson Jul 2013 #38
JustAnotherGen Jul 2013 #39
Lurks Often Jul 2013 #47
uppityperson Jul 2013 #53
uppityperson Jul 2013 #55
Lurks Often Jul 2013 #62
DearAbby Jul 2013 #10
onehandle Jul 2013 #5
WinkyDink Jul 2013 #7
JustAnotherGen Jul 2013 #11
bravenak Jul 2013 #14
pipi_k Jul 2013 #16
LanternWaste Jul 2013 #18
WinkyDink Jul 2013 #48
premium Jul 2013 #21
Cirque du So-What Jul 2013 #23
premium Jul 2013 #30
Ruby the Liberal Jul 2013 #22
Crepuscular Jul 2013 #34
RedCappedBandit Jul 2013 #25
Jessy169 Jul 2013 #28
Crepuscular Jul 2013 #32
Ruby the Liberal Jul 2013 #35
HipChick Jul 2013 #33
moondust Jul 2013 #36
premium Jul 2013 #40
moondust Jul 2013 #41
LittleBlue Jul 2013 #42
Inkfreak Jul 2013 #58
EdwardSmith74 Jul 2013 #43
premium Jul 2013 #50
EdwardSmith74 Jul 2013 #51
premium Jul 2013 #52
EdwardSmith74 Jul 2013 #54
premium Jul 2013 #56
EdwardSmith74 Jul 2013 #57
premium Jul 2013 #61
NCTraveler Jul 2013 #44
HeroInAHalfShell Jul 2013 #46
HeroInAHalfShell Jul 2013 #45
lpbk2713 Jul 2013 #49
life long demo Jul 2013 #63

Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 12:22 PM

1. The more smug he is

The more I'm convinced that he's going to walk. What would be interesting is to see the faces of the jurors if they caught his smug, snotty, satisfied little chuckle. Snot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #1)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 12:36 PM

6. I think the witness laughed at the question, too

The prosecution really stepped in it by letting GZ's coursework in as evidence. It let the defense argue the law in front of the jury. Big mistake by the state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kudzu22 (Reply #6)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 03:23 PM

60. Not necessarily. Now the onus is on Zimmerman's attorney to explain Zimmerman's level of fear...

and why an armed man who trained in MMA 3x/week and chose to leave his car to chase a teenager was so afraid of him once he caught up with him that he had to kill him.

But only Zimmerman can really explain his feelings leading to the moment that he shot Martin.

The prosecution showed that Zimmerman lied on Hannity when he claimed he never even heard of SYG, when in fact he'd done coursework on it, so not only was aware of the law, but knew the ins and outs of it.

And they made it more likely that Zimmerman will need to take the stand.

I read an article in the Guardian Online at the end of the 1st week that explained why something else the prosecution had done made it more likely Zimmerman would need to take the stand. (Can't remember at the moment, but will try to find it later).

They may be setting up a situation a piece at a time that will pressure Zimmerman onto the stand, where they can take his story apart and expose him one inconsistency and/or lie at a time...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #1)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 12:49 PM

13. He's not smug, he's a sociopath.

Zimmerman is Travis Bickle (Taxi Driver).

His behavior this entire time is of a person who not only feels no remorse for what he did but he believes completely what he did was right. Look at the way he interacts with his lawyers, AS IF HE WERE ONE OF THEM. This is why he probably will get away - this kind of sociopath is able to think quickly and be convincing to certain people because they BELIEVE the image of themselves in their head and they lack the same moral filters normal people have. He seems himself as an enforcer and defender. So he can lie better and faster than most, I bet he could lie through a detector in fact. You can see it in his 'creepy' behavior; the way he stares, comports himself, speaks. Reminds me of Tom Cruise when he was on Today Show or Oprah - that creepy scientology vibe of someone who KNOWS their right and believes THEY are the ones here to make a difference.

Look up the Tom Cruise scientology video he did a few years and you'll see another kind of sociopath ("If I see an accident. I HAVE to stop. Because I know I am the ONLY one who can help." He says this over and over.)

These are not your regular weirdos, these are the dangerous ones who unfortunately get away.

Just like Travis Bickle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maximumnegro (Reply #13)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 12:51 PM

15. I agree

There's something terribly off about him. But that's just your opinion and mine. I'm sure someone will chime in and say - but you guuuuuuuuuuuys That's not niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice. You can't say anything baaaaaaaaaaad about Zimmerman because he's innocent until proven guilty. Gird your loins Maximum - they're comin' for us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maximumnegro (Reply #13)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 01:13 PM

20. As well as a pathological liar. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maximumnegro (Reply #13)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 03:20 PM

59. He was amused over the Hannity clip yesterday too. Smiling when it was done.

Usually he just sits there starring off into space, deadpan. Yet, in that Hannity interview he says he has no regrets and this is all "God's plan". And then he smiles? WTF?

Yesterday I saw him walk into court, stick his hand out to shake his lawyers hand, and then winked at him.

WTF was that all about? He's just too comfy-cozy in all this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 12:23 PM

2. well given that a totally asinine question

was asked and quippy response was given... yeah, it was pretty funny. despite the nature of the proceedings, there can still be funny moments and sometimes the tension just breaks in this way.

sP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Reply #2)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 12:43 PM

9. Hey, I'll

join you in being a target in what will probably be a big pile-on later.

I think it's amusing too.

Good thing I'm not a juror. I would probably have laughed at it.

But then, I'm one of those sick bastards who, if someone cracks a joke at a wake or funeral...with a dead person right there...I'll laugh.

It's happened lots of times.

Back in 2005, just hours after my MIL passed away in my living room and the family was waiting for the funeral home guys to arrive, we found ourselves laughing like hell at a few things.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 12:33 PM

3. Isn't that special.



No sign of any remorse or the tiniest bit of sadness that he took a life. Piece of shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 12:35 PM

4. The same could have applied to Martin, 'tackling' or restraining Zimmy ...

“You don’t have to wait until you’re almost dead until you can defend yourself."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Myrina (Reply #4)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 12:41 PM

8. Correct, but only IF you can prove Zimmerman

threatened him or struck him first. Absent some surprise witness, I don't think that the State can prove that and if they did have such a witness, I would have expected them to have brought that witness into court by now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #8)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 12:47 PM

12. Following TM through the neighborhood, getting out of the vehicle &

.... approaching him in the dark sounds pretty threatening to me, if I'm 17.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Myrina (Reply #12)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 12:55 PM

17. Problem Here Is That...

Pursuing him, following him, confronting him... none of this is illegal here in Florida! He's not being tried for any of the above. He's saying SELF-DEFENSE. Now how does anyone define self-defense for another person.

I'm still very, very wary that this POS is going to walk! So sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Myrina (Reply #12)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 01:09 PM

19. Under Florida law, that is not justification to attack someone though

so again we come full circle: Did Zimmerman verbally threaten Martin or hit Martin, which would need to be proven or did Martin strike Zimmerman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #8)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 01:32 PM

24. For TM to use it, he has to prove Z attacked him 1st. For Z to use it he has to prove only he was

scared.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #24)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 01:36 PM

26. Not quite

he has to prove to the jury he was in reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm.

The prosecution has to prove that Zimmerman was not in reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm or that Zimmerman threatened Martin or attacked Martin first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #26)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 01:39 PM

27. For TM to have used it, "but only IF you can prove Zimmerman struck...first"

TM could only use deadly force "but only IF you can prove Zimmerman threatened him or struck him first" but all Zimmy needed was "reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm".



ETA, those are your quotes, from posts in this subthread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #27)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 01:45 PM

29. Since I find the head injuries believable and will absent

stronger testimony then I have seen so far, Zimmerman had reason to be in fear of death or grave bodily harm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #29)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 01:48 PM

31. It just seems hypocritical to say 1 needs to be struck first, the other need only to be in fear

of death or bodily harm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #31)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 02:06 PM

37. That is not quite what I meant, even if I stated it un-clearly.

Both had the right to be there that night
Both had the right to speak with the other
Neither had the right to strike the other without cause and following someone is not cause

There is no evidence that Martin was aware of the gun until moments before it was fired or that Zimmerman verbally threatened him or struck him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #37)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 02:08 PM

38. There is no evidence of TM attacking Z either. All we have is a proven lier's word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #38)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 02:10 PM

39. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #38)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 02:44 PM

47. And the nose and head injuries?

The simplest explanation is usually the right one and conspiracy theory like speculation that Zimmerman inflicted the wounds himself or had the police inflict them is not the simplest explanation.

What would change your mind that Zimmerman is guilty?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #47)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 03:03 PM

53. He scraped his head on something, could be the ground or a bush. His nose impacted something, could

be as he says or could have been kick back from shooting his gun. I do not think he did it to himself or had the police do it either. I think they tussled and he continued to over react as he did from the beginning.

You are right, the simplest is often the right one. But he has proven himself to be a liar and there are so many inconsistencies in what he claims that picking and choosing which are true is not possible.

What would change my mind is a reputable eye witness or video.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #47)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 03:07 PM

55. I would like to ask it back to you. What would change your mind that Zimmerman is guilty?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #55)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 03:34 PM

62. Proof that the injuries were not caused by Martin

Reliable testimony that the gunshot was fired from a distance

I won't make a judgment based on an absence of evidence such as DNA or inconclusive and/or contradicting testimony from "amateur" witnesses*

There may be some other reasons as well that I haven't thought of.

*An amateur witness would be any of the neighbors, regardless of who's testimony it supports.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Myrina (Reply #4)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 12:44 PM

10. Absolutely

To Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman was acting like he was up to no good, suspiciously. First following by car, then on foot. Martin didn't need injuries to feel threatened. Zimmerman lied to him about having no Problem, when asked "Do you have a problem with me?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 12:35 PM

5. Good. Save that giggle for the big house.

Remember, first thing you do is go up to the biggest, scariest prisoner you find, and kick his ass.

Wait.... You don't have your gun.

Wait... He's African-American.

Yeah... That's going to hurt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 12:38 PM

7. I find Z's laughter repulsive. He is an admitted killer. This trial is about a dead KID. Let others

laugh.

NOT HIM.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #7)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 12:46 PM

11. Amen

If he's convicted of anything - that's when I'll laugh. And only then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 12:51 PM

14. I'll laugh when he gets 25 to life.

Maybe not. I will just be happy he won't kill any more kids.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 12:52 PM

16. He really can't win, you know...

No matter what facial expressions or emotions he shows, people are going to find fault with it.

No emotion = coldhearted bastard

Smile or laughter = smug, coldhearted, no regrets asshole

I imagine if he sat there crying, people would accuse him crying crocodile tears.


So it's not about the emotion as much as it is about him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipi_k (Reply #16)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 01:02 PM

18. Tends to happen when one commits perjury for lying under oath...

"So it's not about the emotion as much as it is about him...."

Tends to happen when one commits perjury for lying under oath about the family's financial status during a court hearing. I'd hardly expect anyone to allow me the benefit of a doubt had I done that...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipi_k (Reply #16)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 02:49 PM

48. TFB.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 01:17 PM

21. Just about everyone laughed,

 

why single just him out?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to premium (Reply #21)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 01:28 PM

23. Because he's the one on trial for murder, that's why

Definitely not normal affect for an individual in that situation - and neither is unabashed support for this scum buzzard what I would consider normal affect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cirque du So-What (Reply #23)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 01:45 PM

30. You are reading far too much into a moment of laughter,

 

IMO, and just who is expressing unabashed support for Zimmerman?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 01:22 PM

22. In fairness, the question was so stupid that when the Captain responded,

many people in the courtroom laughed. His tone was "I can't believe you just asked that".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #22)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 01:54 PM

34. His tone didn't imply that at all

Carter's response simply agreed with the premise that the defense had been building on in their cross, that a person does not have to sustain injuries in order to be able to legitimately use deadly force in self defense, a concept that was confirmed by Carter's testimony! His tone indicated, "Yeah, it would be pretty stupid to expect people to have to wait until they were mortally wounded before they could respond". Carter was a plus for the defense, as most of the prosecution witness's have been.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 01:35 PM

25. He does not give a single shit that an innocent child is dead because of him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 01:44 PM

28. I defy you to view that GIF more than a few cycles without getting sick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 01:50 PM

32. It was a funny line.

It made me chuckle, too and I'd bet that there were even some smiles at the prosecutors table.

The Prosecution made another blunder by putting Carter on the stand, it allowed the defense to thoroughly go through grounds for self defense instead of having the court be the ones to instruct the jury. The fact that the prosecution witness, who was African American, was cordial to Zimmerman and said "Hi George" certainly benefits the defense. The repeated objections by the prosecutor did nothing but cause the questions that West was asking to be re-phrased and only served to focus attention on what Carter was saying, which was basically re-enforcing the idea that deadly force is an acceptable response in a self defense situation. Don't know what the prosecution was thinking by calling this witness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #32)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 01:58 PM

35. I agree - it allowed the defense the opportunity to define SYG

with the Captain. The prosecution should have gone there before cross, IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 01:52 PM

33. Taking a black child's life is nothing for him..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 02:06 PM

36. "He just kept slamming and slamming my head into the sidewalk."

"It felt like my head was going to explode."

That is blunt force trauma. A head CT or MRI is definitely indicated to diagnose any potential intracranial hemorrhaging, possibly leading to death.

Why did neither George nor the EMT insist on a head CT after that kind of life-threatening injury?

Because it didn't happen and therefore he didn't mention it to the EMT? :smirk:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moondust (Reply #36)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 02:13 PM

40. Severity of injury is irrelevant to self defense

 

all that's required is that a person has a reasonable fear of great bodily injury or death, IOW, you don't have to wait to get your ass beaten to believe that your life is in danger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to premium (Reply #40)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 02:16 PM

41. You're talking about DURING an altercation.

I'm talking about the period AFTER an altercation occurred. Theory and actual events are two completely different things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 02:16 PM

42. Is this really a big deal?

The witness was making that statement in jest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #42)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 03:13 PM

58. Only if..

You're emotionally involved in a murder case in another state that'll have no real bearing on everyday life for most Americans.

Only if you buy into the media & others bullshit that this case deserves our rapt attention. And that somehow this is a Left vs Right scenario.

Only if, like me, you enjoy reading the vast amount of snarky back & forth in the dozens of threads about this trial. It's a nice break from the Snowden: Love/Hate threads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 02:17 PM

43. Yeah, THAT will help the asshole's case.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EdwardSmith74 (Reply #43)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 02:54 PM

50. What? Showing that he's human?

 

Didn't you say yesterday that he had to be drugged because he was comatose?

Yes you did.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3149885

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to premium (Reply #50)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 02:55 PM

51. Yes and he still seems to be. Some sort of depressant/happy pill is my guess.

 

He just doesn't seem to be taking any of this seriously. He killed an unarmed kid. I think that's pretty serious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EdwardSmith74 (Reply #51)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 03:02 PM

52. And your guess would be wrong,

 

no lawyer is going to allow his client to come into court drugged out, and he does seem to be taking this trial seriously.
But, if it makes you feel better, keep believing that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to premium (Reply #52)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 03:05 PM

54. Just an observation. Admittedly I've only watched a few clips, but he seems out of touch.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EdwardSmith74 (Reply #54)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 03:08 PM

56. I've been watching the trial from day 1,

 

and my observations have been of a very attentive, serious, G. Zimmerman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to premium (Reply #56)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 03:12 PM

57. Doesn't that get a little boring? I liked the prosecuter's opening statement, but thre rest is well,

 

you know, remember the OJ trial? It just seems like a repeat. Still, I'll defer to your judgement on the drug thing, but the snickering was still inappropriate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EdwardSmith74 (Reply #57)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 03:28 PM

61. Not really,

 

I'm retired FLEO and I've always been fascinated by these types of trials.
As far as the snickering, I'm not going to judge him by what the rest of the people in the courtroom were doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 02:29 PM

44. It shows him as being human.

He laughed with just about everyone else in the court. If a juror were on tape laughing, as I am sure some did, would you say they weren't taking their job serious. Many people in the court got a short chuckle out of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #44)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 02:34 PM

46. exactly. the OP needs to take a break.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 02:33 PM

45. because he is the only one to chuckle?

 

from the responses below everyone laughed at the question. even posters here!

I think you are stretching a little far to make him look bad..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 02:53 PM

49. I've seen several dismal critiques of the prosecutuon's presentation.




Perhaps Zimmy has seen them too and overconfidence is setting in?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 03:46 PM

63. Z is a sick bastard

no redeeming values whatsoever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread