It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
Sigh. Thank you, America! 🙂
On another note: I’m watching Blade. Whatever happened to Steven Norrington? Was LXG that much of a career killer?
Dennis Dugan (Jack & Jill, Grown Ups 1-2, The Benchwarmers, National Security, Just Go With It) clears $1 billion in domestic box office receipts as a “director!”
Adam Sandler has now grossed more than Judd Apatow as a “screenwriter!”
Thank you America about sums it up 🙂
Amblinman – I think he allowed it to be a career killer. Said he was giving up directing afterward.
And Fox just ordered an LXG TV pilot. And I just realized that “LXG” is THIS close to being a familiar username on this site. Coincidence?
So……Grown Ups 3 in 2016?
Warner Bros. only has themselves to blame for this opening. They marketed the movie like shit. I’m no fan of Del Toro, I just hope the best for Day and Elba’s future theatrical prospects.
Wouldn’t ANYTHING over 25mil weekend be considered a HUGE SURPRISE WIN for THE RIM? Shit, I thought it was gonna open at like a Pilgrim 13 mil.
“And acting as though Grownups 2 is some moral affront makes people sound as stupid as they feel the movie is.”
I don’t think it’s a moral affront. I just think Sandler is bored with his job, and is intentionally making the crappiest movie (from a technical standpoint at least) that he can get away with for shits and giggles, which I personally find hilarious. I imagine him screening “Grown Ups 2” in his home theater for his friends and pointing and laughing at all the screwed up shit in the background that the poor schmucks known as his fans are too stupid to notice (or maybe they do and think it’s funny too and the joke is only on the critics).
There is intentionally crappy makeup (skin tones that don’t come close to matching), intentional prop discontinuity in virtually every scene (his appliances, furniture and cutlery seem to be the aging stars of “The Brave Little Toaster” as they shuffle back and forth between cutaways), intentionally bad lighting that is at times dimmer outside in the afternoon than in Sandler’s bedroom at night, and intentionally insane product placement (Sandler waking up to unopened Pepsi in his bedroom…there is another scene in which a bag of Cool Ranch Doritos mutates into Buffalo flavor instantaneously). Basically he’s taking a giant dump on the process of movie-making to keep himself sane, and why not? It’s not like his product is far below crap like HANGOVER.
For “Grownups 3” I imagine Mary McCormack and Maria Bello will trade scenes, and he’ll try to digitally enlarge Salma Hayek’s breasts from shot to shot, and he’ll finally have broken the fourth wall in his process
Are Jamie Chung and that smoking blonde daughter of Schneider back? Or are they a casualty of Schneider sitting it out?
I felt a like a right idiot for actually enjoying Grown Ups (‘yo Dad, what’s this big box attached to the back of the TV?’ ‘That’ s the rest of the TV.’) but I think there’s something in guild’s theory. Every time Sandler puts in a bit more effort (Zohan, Reign Over Me, Funny People, even That’s My Boy to some degree), it gets rejected by the Happy Madison core group. That said, he’s still not too old for Happy Gilmore 2, The Pro Years.
@LYT, he quit directing? Too bad. Even LXG had its moments. He looked like he had some bigger, more promising genre beats in him. He reminds me of Alex Proyas, someone who I’m convinced should have had a bigger career.
I liked PR. Do not consider it great, can understand not liking it. However that GU2 beats it bodes so terribly. We call studios dumb but in reality they simply give the public what they want. So if you tell them you want more Adam Sandler and less GDT, that’s what they’re gonna give us.
To pretend that a victory for GROWN UPS over PACIFIC RIM equates to the public choosing crap over art is ridiculous. RIM is an almost fatally compromised movie, and certainly no towering spire of auteurist grandeur. We ALL chose crap a long, long time ago. (Any writer of even minor competence could have made the human element in RIM more effective in a 45-minute pass. As far as gripping time-wasters to, the much-derided INDEPENDENCE DAY is far more involving. But the big city set fight-scene in RIM is better than anything in ID.)
Why wasn’t the tagline for pac rim “to fight monsters we made…ROBOTS”
Also, do they ever explain in the movie if they have the tech to synch minds and build gigantic mechs why didn’t they just build spaceships?
“To pretend that a victory for GROWN UPS over PACIFIC RIM equates to the public choosing crap over art is ridiculous”
So is your strawman argument. I didn’t assert PR was art, maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. Different conversation. This is about popular taste in mainstream entertainment. Some choices lead to better options in the future.
Warner Bros. was kidding themselves if they thought Pacific Rim could ever get above $150 million domestic. A month ago, I stated in another Hot Blog thread that I didn’t think it would hit $100 million domestic and I still think that now. This movie was always going to depend on its international haul, so I anxiously await the numbers on that end.
I agree with anghus in the review thread that Pacific Rim was an entirely average film, too. It had some interesting moments (the flashback sequence in Tokyo with the young Mako was by far its most riveting — it reminded me of the T-Rex scene in Jurassic Park, and it had much the same cinematic effect on me as that scene did, too). The blinders that geeks and reviewers apparently have for Del Toro is a little weird to me. It’s fine if you’re into his schtick, but at least acknowledge how thin his character development, acting choices and dialogue are and admit his live action cartoon sensibilities are as silly as they are boisterous.
Personally, I’d take Shia LeBeouf and his Transformer acting over anything in Pacific Rim. At least LeBeouf could predominantly ground Bay’s films every now and again and make you think you were watching a human experience. Only Del Toro’s Pan’s Labyrinth child star ever gave that to me as a film (and only Mako’s childhood scene in Pac Rim). Just let Del Toro make child actor movies and I think he’ll be just fine, but otherwise, the dude can’t stay grounded in any world I find myself interested in.
HUNNAM POWER THE GOD OF ALL ACTING.
YOU WILL BOW. He is PITT, HE IS LEDGER, HE IS AWESOME.
HUNNAM. By FAR and I MEAN FAR, the BEST THING about Pacific Rim. LOOK AT HIM.
I’m just elieved “PR” didn’t entirely tank like other fanboy-hyped fantasias (e.g., “Scott Pilgrim” which Lex referenced above).
As someone who’s been a Sandler apologist/fan since the early ’90s–and who thought “Grown Ups 1” was one of the worst movies of the past decade–I was relieved that #2 was actually a marginal improvement over the original.
The last 20 minutes are surprisingly not-terrible, and there were some mild grace notes scattered throughout to prevent it from being entirely worthless.
Interesting how a non-buffed Lautner looks pretty much like any skinny/ordinary college-age jerk and not the ripped Adonis he was in the latter “Twilight”s. For what it’s worth, playing an asshole actually becomes him: it’s easily the best “acting” he’s ever done. Again, for what it’s worth.
relieved
PACIFIC RIM.
BOW.
In regards to del toro blinders i think it’s all summed up by the scene w the eye creature in pan’s labrynth. The kid is told one thing and one thing only not to do then 5 seconds later she breaks the rule and the eye creature comes to life and everyone wants to give him the best filmmaker of all time award. Meh
I had a great time going along for the ride with Pacific Rim. It’s this summer’s Prometheus. Love both movies.
“Interesting how a non-buffed Lautner looks pretty much like any skinny/ordinary college-age jerk and not the ripped Adonis he was in the latter “Twilight”s”
I felt bad for Lautner. I found him no worse than Stewart or Pattinson in the “Twilight” films, and can forgive ABduction , as DP called it, on bad parental management. Must be depressing that junior werewolf BooBoo Stewart is getting all the calls these days, while Lautner is getting castrated by CGI deer.
Also, one of the other frat kids was Patrick Schwarzenegger, following up his scintillating debut in the same director’s “Benchwarmers.”
“Pacific Rim” was grandly deranged and its 2+ hours just flew by. The cast was great (although much scenery was stolen by Ron Perlman & Charlie Day). I’m a big Guillermo Del Toro fan and despite the big budget “Pacific Rim” is packed with his unique style. This thing should have legs as it’s thrilling, funny and has a lot of heart. Looks like I’ll be back there tomorrow for another round of Kaiju. “Where’s my goddamn shoe?!?!?!”
Easy to rip on Grown Ups 2, but I was astounded by its overall ineptness and the total indifference of the stars. How many features has Dugan made now? It seemed as if it was directed by a 12-year old. And yeah it’s a Sandler movie, but there is not even a semblance of a plot. It just meanders from gag to gag to gag. It is unbelievably lazy. No one seems like they are even remotely trying. I’m not a Sandler hater, and I wasn’t expecting high art, but holy crap it’s excruciating in its total lack of effort. Saying the last 20 minutes are surprisingly not terrible is like saying bone cancer wasn’t as painful as you thought it would be. It still sucks real bad.
Going to see Pacific Rim in 90 minutes. Very excited.
Agree that the Mako flashback scene was the highpoint of the movie, and it struck me that it was the only scene that really slowed down and showed the fear that these monsters could illicit. Most everyone else was like ok, another monster attack, lets go hide and I’ll see ya tomorrow type attitude.
There should have been more personal moments like this, and while I liked PR, it did feel distant, save for the flashback scene. And by the way, that little girl can really emote. Wow.
July 13th 2013. The day murder became legal in Florida.
Bulldog68: As I have posted elsewhere: The first thing my wife said when we heard the verdict: “George Zimmerman will spend the rest of his life looking over his shoulder.”
But he’ll be alive to do it Joe. Watching Robert Zimmerman’s level of arrogance on Pierce Morgan infuriates me. He said Treyvon Martin should have gone home and his brother is not responsible for his death. Isn’t that what Treyvon was attempting to do?
I don’t expect his brother to stop supporting him, but his cocky attitude and complete painting of his brother as some unsuspecting victim is just very hard to watch without feeling angry. I accept the verdict. I have no choice about that. But hearing this is just rubbing salt in an open wound.
Been saying it since the prosecution put a Liar on the stand a few weeks back…he was getting off no matter what…you can’t do that as the prosecution and expect to win. After you put someone who admits to lying as it pertains to the case on the stand as a prosecutor, the Jury will trust nothing else you have to say and you will lose. Its not all about facts, its also about trust. The best lawyers know this and the morons going after Zimmerman in this case were definitely not the best…not even close… I haven’t seen this much of a televised Asswhuppin since Johnny Cockrin’s beat down of Marsha Clark in the first O.J. Trial…”It doesn’t matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove” -Tom Cruise (a few good men)
holy shit, zimmerman got off? wow, that’s just beyond shameful. (was the jury not allowed to listen to his police interview when he was initially questioned by police? how they didn’t charge him right then and there should be investigated). another stone killer walks. i feel really bad for martin’s family, no justice for their boy.
If Pacific Rim had dropped the whole robots angle, the movie might have been bigger. As is, the movie looks like it’s for little kids. They could have marketed it as a big scary adventure.
Ironically last year a black woman in Florida was sentenced to 20 years for firing a warning shot into the wall at her abusive husband. She was not allowed to use the Stand Your Ground law.
Ralph Wald, a 70-year-old Vietnam veteran, walked into his home around midnight, and less than ten seconds later, fired three shots at Walter Conley, according to ABC News. He told the jury he thought Conley was raping his wife when he saw them having intercourse in his home. But during a 911 call, when the dispatcher asked Wald if the man was dead, Wald responded, “I hope so!” and refused to help the man. He asked for medical help for his wife, Johnna Flores, since he thought he accidentally shot her also. He said he didn’t recognize Conley even though he had been roommates with his wife prior to her relationship with Wald, lived next door to Wald, had tattoos of Flores on his neck and back, and worked for Flores at her fencing company.
Prosecutors argued that Wald, who suffered from erectile dysfunction, killed Conley in a jealous rage, pointing out that Wald used the word “fornicate” in reports to police, and never the word “rape.”
To acquit Wald under the state’s Stand Your Ground law, Wald had to prove only that he believed his wife was being raped. It doesn’t matter that he shot immediately without taking time to assess the situation, nor that he could have likely taken other measures short of firing three shots into Conley’s head and back. Stand Your Ground laws authorize the unfettered use of deadly force where someone fears assault, without even a duty to first attempt to retreat.
And with all of this, people still claim that the American Justice System is the best in the world.
Open Season in Florida.
@LYT- I read over here in Empire two years ago that after trying to quit LXG because of a personality conflict with Connery the director was removed during editing leading him to write letters to all of Hollywood resigning from his projects and vowing to never direct again. He was attached to remakes of The Crow and Clash of the Titans but ended up not on those films. I doubt anyone comes back to direct a film after a ten year hiatus. In the meantime another weekend of inaccurate predictions and silly analysis from La Poland and his dozen readers on the site.
@ LexG: Unfortunately, the daughters are absent and none of the feeble attempts this time around at including eye candy even come close to being as good as they were.
RIP Cory Monteith.
Not turning on the news the rest of the weekend.
Bulldog68: Zimmerman did not rely on Florida’s Stand Your Ground law. As pernicious as many believe such laws to be, they are not the reason for the acquittal of Zimmerman.
Adam Shankman: You are even more a piece of shit than was previously imagined. I hope your disgusting mediawhoring today finishes off what’s left of your career.
Read this for an enlightening take on Florida law. The last sentences are especially… interesting.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/07/how_much_is_about_florida_law.php?ref=fpblg
Thanks for the intel on LXG, Don.
Hey, is that Don Murphy? I owe that guy twenty bucks for when he gave me a blowjob in the alley. The cops showed up and he ran off. Don, get me your address and I’ll hook you up.
p.s. it wasn’t a very good blowjob.
Joe, that’s past the point of the absurd.
Perm: As a buddy once told me: “There is no such thing as bad head.”
Bulldog: It’s the American way.
Everybody: Last night — when the long-suffering Mrs. L and I finally caught up with Star Trek Into Darkness — we saw a trailer for The Butler. I thought those had been yanked from theaters?
Strange as it may seem, I believe Schneider was committed to another project and thus couldn’t do GU2.
When I saw the first (not of my own free will), I was struck at how much it felt like a two-hour outtake reel, with guys just standing around telling jokes while the cameras rolled. This one apparently is even more of the same. And after one disappointment and two outright flops, leading to hopes that he’d finally hit the wall, Sandler seems to have managed a comeback. Wouldn’t it be depressing if this turned out to be Sony’s top-grossing live-action film of the year?
So, the hits so far this Summer.
World War Z. Iron Man 3. Man of Steel. FF6. Monsters U. Despicable Me 2. Gatsby. The Heat. Grown Ups 2 (assuming). This is the End. Now You See Me. Kevin Hart: Let Me Explain. The Purge.
And the misses.
Hangover III. After Earth. White House Down. Lone Ranger. The Internship.
If the budgets werent so ridiculously high, this might be a pretty good summer.
Re: Self-defense
Zimmerman was acquitted because of an addenda to the self-defense laws (which are pretty similar across the US).
Essentially, if you are the aggressor in an altercation you lose your right to “self-defense” except under two circumstances:
1 – The defender responds disproportionately and the initial aggressor fears for their life.
2 – The aggressor withdraws from the altercation but the defender pursues (which gets into the “Stand Your Ground” laws which dictate when a defender is legally able to pursue an aggressor).
Zimmerman’s defense essentially revolved around (1) – even if he initiated the altercation by pursuing Trayvon Martin, he feared for his life (based on the evidence of his head injuries) and responded with deadly force.
Personally, I’m not a fan of that statute – if you start a fight and keep pushing so that the defender has to respond with potentially deadly force, then that technically allows you to use deadly force. Or to put it another way, if you pick a fight and get your ass handed to you, you can then respond with a weapon. In fact, it’s hard to think of a situation where that “you get self-defense back” clause wouldn’t be invoked unless the defender never actually tries to defend themselves.
I can see its use in, say, someone attempting to restrain the “defender” who then pulls a knife or a gun, but for me it seems against the spirit of the law for the guy who forces the confrontation AND is armed with a gun to use this defense to justify the death of an unarmed opponent.
As it was, the onus was on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman had lost his right to self-defense. Unfortunately, the prosecution sucked pretty hard and failed to do so – there were too many inconsistencies with testimony and evidence – and because of “reasonable doubt” Zimmerman was acquitted.
It is also of note that Zimmerman neglected to a) Obey the orders the police told him over the phone to NOT pursue the victim; and b) Explain to the victim he was the neighbourhood watch leader. If the man had done his job right, none of this would’ve happened.
WAYS IN WHICH THE ZIMMERMAN VERDICT AFFECTS THE DAY-TO-DAY LIVES OF RICH WHITE NYC/LA BEARDO REP HOUSE MOVIE GEEKS:
ZERO.
My takeaway from Zimmerman was when he was asked if he had any regrets or would have done anything differently, he said “no” and asserted that it was all part of Gods plan.
people like that are beyond redemption. Even if you believe him. Even if you think he was justified, that statement is so sad. The fact that he has zero regret is scary. I regret breakfast purchases and wardrobe choices. This guy murders a kid and is like “I’m fine.” That level of disconnect is scary.
Good point anghus. I’m also a little confused by something. Let’s say for the sake of argument that Martin really did get the better of Zimmerman and end up on top of him as they struggled. Florida clearly puts a premium on one’s right to defend their life. Zimmerman stalked Martin, had a loaded gun, and was physically much bigger than the teen. How was Martin not defending his own life as they struggled? He was not legally allowed to carry a gun in Florida. If he did get the better of Zimmerman, was he not entitled to defend himself?
Foamy Squirrel:
1. That addenda is actually quite different across jurisdictions. Some would say that if “[t]he defender responds disproportionately and the initial aggressor fears for their life,” it is imperfect self-defense and merely downgrades murder to manslaughter.
2. There’s a second requirement to that addenda which is why that defense is rarely successful. Take a look at Section 776.041(2)(a) of the Florida Statutes, which states that an initial aggressor cannot claim self-defense unless “[s]uch force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant….”
Paul Doro: It is quite possible that both individuals in an encounter would be entitled to claim self-defense. Hypothetically, if Trayvon Martin killed George Zimmerman, he would have had a potentially viable claim of self-defense.
As a black teenager in Florida, I highly doubt it.
Why couldnt Martin have claimed ‘stand your ground’.
Because Zimmerman claimed he was attacked. And since Martin was dead, no one could reasonably state otherwise. Since Zimmerman claims he was attacked by Martin, he was the one in the act of defense. A dead man can’t refute that claim, which is one of the inherent flaws in the laws. Basically i could lure you into a fight. The minute you bloody my nose i could reasonably shoot and kill you. Without witnesses to refute your side of the story, you would get away with it.
That’s a hell of a law right there. If i want you dead, all i need to do is agitate you into hitting me a few times. Then i can shoot you and get off scott free.
Yeah it’s messed up.
anghus and Paul Doro: How else would you have the law of self-defense? A defendant claiming self-defense in a homicide case is always going to claim that he was attacked or that he reasonably thought that he was being attacked. The victim, obviously, can’t testify. What would you change?
Well I wouldn’t acquit a guy with a gun over the dead guy with Skittles and ice tea.
There’s a difference between self defense and hiding behind your actions simply because you “feel” that your life was threatened, based on no facts to back it up, and no one else to say any differently. If someone is breaking into your house, it’s one thing. It’s another to let your emotions get in the way and be commended for your paranoia.
This law also has a lot to do with race, unsurprisingly.
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/11/stand_your_ground_law_helps_white_defendants_a_lot_more_than_black_ones/
brack: There is no doubt that, empirically, Stand Your Ground law have benefitted Caucasian defendants more than African-American defendants, and there should be a dialogue about them. There’s just one problem with using the Zimmerman/Martin case to start that dialogue: Zimmerman didn’t rely on Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.
Dead Men Tell No Tales.
i think you just have to put something on the book that basically says ‘if you kill someone with a gun in self defense or otherwise a mandatory sentence of ‘blank’ will be applied’
We spend so much of our time in this grey area. If you take a life for any reason, you are guilty. No tap dancing. No twinkie defenses. Killing someone with a firearm comes with a mandatory 3 year minimum. Then, if it is self defense, a judge could lighten the sentence or commute it. But it would basically be very very cut and dry. If you shoot someone and they die, you’re going to jail. No reasonable explinations. No sidestepping. Know that when you pull the trigger shooting another person it means you probably are going to serve some time.
Might make people think twice before trying to kill them.
Or maybe not.
Under this kind of provision, Zimmerman would serve time. You could find him not guilty of second degree murder, but you would find him guilty for the secondary charge of mortally wounding someone with a firearm. And the corpse would be all the proof you would need.
Zimmerman went to FOX and Hannity to testify about God’s Will — yet he decided not to testify under God at his own trial. Do the math.
Anybody defending Zimmerman outside his legal defense is a bigot and moron. And the celebrations from wacko gun righties is scary. Speaking of beardos, lex’s bitch Jeff Wells site is a haven to angry racist Zimmerman defenders. Wonder why?
Christian: Maybe the concentration of so much toxicity caused JW’s server to short-circuit? Because, evidently, his site is down.
“We spend so much of our time in this grey area. If you take a life for any reason, you are guilty. No tap dancing. No twinkie defenses. Killing someone with a firearm comes with a mandatory 3 year minimum. Then, if it is self defense, a judge could lighten the sentence or commute it. But it would basically be very very cut and dry. If you shoot someone and they die, you’re going to jail.”
So now the very act of defending yourself is illegal? That’s opening a whole new can of worms. If someone breaks into my house with a gun and I shoot first, now I’m the criminal?
And anghus is the one developing “Binary Theory”!
All due respect to Pacific Rim, it never looked anything but a Big-budgeted Godzilla movie to me and I’m guessing many others. Transformers is transformers, but that was a massive toy seller and massive successful brand for twenty years going before Mr. Bay stepped in.
And I don’t get Sandler, and I don’t get why people would pay to see his movies in a theater. watch it for free on cable one lazy afternoon? Sure. But pay opening weekend.
And last week’s verdict is highly troubling – but for me hammers in one large point. Make Jury Duty mandatory. Want smarter verdicts, get smarter jurors.
The act of defending yourself is not illegal. The idea of taking a life is. I’m not saying it would be perfect, but a world where everyone who kills someone with a gun is automatically guilty of a crime with a marginal punishment would probably be a deterrent in a way current laws aren’t.
That way, the legality of it is taken from the jury. You shot and killed someone. You’re guilty. The burden of proof involves you being tied to the murder weapon.
Call it “Turn the other cheek law” and get the Christians on board.
The law exists to be circumvented. I don’t know if you should ever be able to ‘get away’ with murder. Even if its self defense, do you ever really ‘get away’ with it? Make all murder a crime. Sentence people to PTSD counseling if they did it in self defense.
In terms of law, I think we need to get away from the idea that killing anyone is ever justifiable. Maybe we need to draw that strong a line.
I’m just spitballing. Someone asked what i’d do to change the law. That was the first thing that came tom mind.
Think about the system of picking jurors for a moment. You ask how much or how little you know about the case, and the ones that claim the most ignorance are chosen. Reminds me of that line from Armageddon, “You know we’re sitting on four million pounds of fuel, one nuclear weapon and a thing that has 270,000 moving parts built by the lowest bidder. Makes you feel good, doesn’t it?”
So if you can prove that you don’t pay attention to local or world events, and especially events that happen right in your neighborhood, that you are so completely disconnected and disassociated from reality, that you are dumber than a bag of fucking hammers, then the American Jurors box is the perfect place for you. Apply now.
Usually, all I have to say is “journalist” during jury selection, and they’re practically carrying me out the door.
One lasting perk of the gig, Joe.
Here in Milwaukee (unfortunately) we have a trial starting this week involving a white man shooting and killing an unarmed black teen. Thought the 13-year-old stole guns from his house (he didn’t), so he confronted and shot him, right in front of his mother. http://news.yahoo.com/wis-man-faces-trial-shooting-teenage-neighbor-204541976.html
And then there’s this:
http://www.businessinsider.com/george-zimmerman-prosecutors-theory-on-trayvon-martin-death-2013-7
i heard something about zimmerman possibly being retried at a federal level, is that for real or just ‘talk’ – how would that work with double-jeopardy, the person who mentioned it to me thought perhaps it might come under the hate-crime federal umbrella or something.
the prosecution did an appalling job at trial, i’ve been reading some of the court transcripts — well my boy has really, he’s doing a class project on the justice system and his teacher said it was ok to include an american case after he saw treyvon’s parents on some tv show and he’s been following the case; it’s been very hard for him to understand the verdict and the concept of a miscarriage of justice at his age, teens are so wonderfully idealistic and it makes him so upset and angry, i’ve been trying to find something to learn out of the whole mess – when i asked him about something we might learn from it all, all he said was, ‘don’t be black and walk around at night’ (i can’t imagine where he gets his sarcasm…) but i’ve just been trying to impart on him that zimmerman’s hate and anger and paranoia is the reason treyvon is dead, and more hate and anger just leads to the dark side — listening to zimmerman’s police interviews is deeply disturbing, not to mention the numerous inconsistencies in his statements that clearly show what a liar he is; that this wasn’t just pounded home by the prosecution presenting the alternative of what REALLY happened that night instead of allowing zimmerman’s nonsensical self-serving BS version to basically stand unopposed, i’ll never understand the rationale behind that, very frustrating. i can’t even imagine how treyvon’s family feels.
The federal government could still charge Zimmerman with a civil rights violation, and would then have to prove that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin because of his race. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0715/Federal-probe-of-George-Zimmerman-not-over-says-Justice-s-Eric-Holder
ah, thanks for the link paul, that explains it.
Leahnz, my 12 year old daughter was also shocked by the verdict, and maybe a few hours later we were talking about movies that had come out this summer, and she said that Trayvon was purged. It was deemed legal execute him.
Maybe that movie’s scenario is not so far fetched now.
This is why the kids are into dystopic fiction. Shit’s real.
A juror just told Anderson Cooper that they found Zimmerman credible and believe that, generally speaking, he told the truth. They also did not believe that Martin’s race had anything to do with what happened. She said Zimmerman should have stayed in his car but had the right to defend himself and believes Martin was the aggressor and threw the first punch. She said Zimmerman had every right to wonder what someone acting weird was doing in the neighborhood. Cooper didn’t ask her to explain how exactly Martin was acting weird. It was a really depressing interview.
oh bulldog that’s so sad, that your wee girl should feel so bad and have to see such an ugly side of the world, but i can relate because that’s pretty much just how my son viewed it. i guess all we can hope for is that our young people and this next gen can somehow go forward and take such ugliness and strive to make a better world, and not feel hopeless or helpless, that’s what i worry about when it comes to the kids.
ETA paul that’s just awful, that makes my heart sink. why didn’t cooper ask that, is he slipping? the police actually railed zimmerman for that. he said martin looked like he was ‘on drugs’ because according to zimmerman he was walking in the rain and looked around at him. those crazy tweakers, looking around!
Bulldog: That always gets you, doesn’t? That moment when you realize just how your kid is viewing the world based on what they learn about the violence and evil out there, Years ago, when my son was about 4, I took him to New Orleans. We visited my mother’s grave. I told him I wish he could have known my mother, that I’m sure she would have loved him. His question: “Did somebody shoot her?”
A couple days later: One day shortly after he got home from school, he asked, out of the blue: “Have you ever hit mom?” My heart sank. I figured some classmate had described his/her home situation. So I told him: “No, honey. I would never hit your mom. For one thing, a man who’s really a man never hits a woman. For another thing, if I ever did hit your mom, she would wait until I went to sleep, and then she would break my kneecaps with a baseball bat.”
I hope he didn’t remember my saying that when I started complaining about the pain in my arthritic knees.
It was clearly established that there was zero Zimmerman DNA or blood on Martin’s hands or anywhere else on his body. Thus he could not have possibly thrown the first punch–or any punch. Add in the fact that Zimmerman’s “savage” beating was so savage he refused to go to the hospital, and that his head wounds were so superficial that they didn’t even require stitches, and it all comes up as a lying horseshit story about self-defense to cover his racist ass.
also it’s well documented that everyone involved in the investigation stated at the time that zimmerman’s injuries were superficial and not at all serious, it’s right there for anyone to read/listen to – but that would require ascertaining the truth rather than just blindly believing zimmerman’s evolving ‘story’ about a savage beating, a blatent lie not supported by the evidence, and the extremely dodgy testimony of someone who lived by and knew zimmerman, who had to recant his statement that martin was raining down blows on zimmerman to admit that he couldn’t see martin throwing blows at all, but he saw ‘hand movement’ as they tussled in the pouring rain as he looked out the window through venetian blinds.
also, on the audio recording of the person screaming for help, it was ultimately ruled inadmissible by the judge but the initial FBI expert ruled out the possibility that it could be zimmerman’s voice – and further, zimmerman himself when initially confronted with the audio tape evidence said that it didn’t sound like him and only asserted afterwards that he was the one screaming, not martin. that the jury just believed all his lies is just incredible, but from what paul said re the juror on Cooper’s show, it wasn’t just that they couldn’t convict beyond reasonable doubt because there wasn’t enough proof, but that they bought zimmmerman’s deception hook, line and sinker – so much worse really.
I like Sandler. Not a lot of his new run-in-the-mill stuff.
You Don’t Mess With The Zohan is one of his best straight-up comedies ever.
Maybe it has to do with the fact that he doesn’t play a schlub in that one, with a female lead who’s way out of his league. Dude can get buff if he wants to, but buff usually doesn’t sell well for comedies unless it’s rom-com.
you know whats been rattling around my brain about the trial?
Technically, they never heard Zimmerman’s side of the story. They played videotape from his visit to the crime scene. They showed an interview with Hannity.
How is it you can be tried for murder and introduce prior interviews as your side of the story but never require to be cross examined on any of the points you brought up? This juror said ‘i believed him’, but she believed him from some interviews on tape. They never got to see Zimmerman on the stand, and no one got to do any kind of cross on him. That seems weird to me.
You can go on trial for murder and show all your public appearances and not have to take the stand if someone wants to counter something you said on tape?
Weird.
Zimmerman didn’t take the stand because he knew his lies would exposed. And did the prosecution bring up his “it was God’s will” insanity he brought to Hannity?
jts that’s a good point anghus, i was wondering about that too because isn’t the cornerstone of the american justice system that any testimony is then open to cross-examination by the opposing council? since when can testimony be played by video clip without cross-examination, isn’t that grounds for a mistrial? also, since when do US criminal courts only use 6 jurors? is this some weird florida crap? florida needs its shit examined
But isnt the weird thing that you can introduce taped statements that can never be cross examined or scrutinized.
I mean, under the Florida scenario, i can taunt someone into a confrontation. As long as i get a bloody nose i can justifiably kill you.
Then, i dont even have to take the stand. I just have to do an interview on camera and then have it submitted as evidence.
The juror state she believed his side of the story, which was presented through taped interviews with police and tv interviews.
Why would you let them enter than into evidence? Surely there has to be something that allows you to suppress taped statements because it allows the defendant to provide his side of the story without scrutiny. Or maybe there isnt. Either way, if more jurors come out saying ‘i believed Zimmerman felt his life was in danger’, and that came from a taped interview, it would pretty much make sense for every lawyer to get their clients on TV and never put them on the stand.
i’ve been trying to figure that out (i twisted my leg and can’t really walk so i’m doing useless stuff at home instead of working) – was the prosecution so inept that it didn’t even attempt to get the taped ‘testimony’ suppressed – since when is a tv interview on some right-wing show considered legal testimony – or was it allowed admissible by the same judge who ruled the expert FBI testimony on the audio evidence inadmissible?
also, there’s a thing called being sworn into a court of law and taking an oath to tell the whole truth, whereby you then submit legally-binding testimony, otherwise you can be charged with perjury; was zimmerman’s ‘testimony’ on hannity legally sworn-in? (of course not), and the police tape of his version of what happened that night isn’t legally-sworn testimony either, people lie to the cops all the time, it’s not legal testimony – or perjury -until you’re sworn in and take an oath in a court of law. another cornerstone of the judicial system. so none of zimmerman’s testimony was legal. throw it all out, mistrial, retrial with with a competent prosecutor with an application for change of venue because of undue prejudice. (i doubt this is even remotely possible, but in my just world)
Unfortunately the reporting herpderp continues as exemplified here.
The opening paragraph:
Rhythm and blues singer Stevie Wonder said he will not perform in Florida until the state discards a “stand your ground” law that played a prominent role in the defense of neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman who was acquitted in a racially charged murder trial.
In fact, NO, “stand your ground” played NO role in the defense of neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman.
It’s no wonder tensions are running high when news agencies report hearsay as fact.
‘In fact, NO, “stand your ground” played NO role in the defense of neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman.’
Which is funny because all the zimmerman defenders I know cite that as to why he’s innocent.
Is that really why tensions are running high? Stand your ground was in fact cited in the instructions to the jury. Even so, tensions are probably high because many people feel like this:
“The injustice inherent in the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman was not authored by a jury given a weak case. The jury’s performance may be the least disturbing aspect of this entire affair. The injustice was authored by a country which has taken as its policy, for the lionshare of its history, to erect a pariah class. The killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman is not an error in programming. It is the correct result of forces we set in motion years ago and have done very little to arrest.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/trayvon-martin-and-the-irony-of-american-justice/277782/
Because people have no clue of the facts of the case and are just making shit up (on both sides)? Yeah, I’m pretty sure that’s a cause for high tension.
And, yes, it’s mentioned in the jury instructions – but the defense’s case was that Zimmerman COULDN’T retreat, even if he wanted to, because Martin was on top of him. Which was supported by the forensics testimony regarding the gunshot. The defense never invoked “Stand Your Ground”.
I repeat, it played NO part in Zimmerman’s defense.
Maybe it’s playing a role, but how much of one? Is that people’s main concern? Or is it feeling like the life of the black teen didn’t matter? To add insult to injury, one of the jurors said Martin played a huge role in his own death and Zimmerman did nothing wrong. They felt like they got to know and understand Zimmerman but didn’t feel the same about Martin. So the life of the black kid didn’t matter much. I’d argue that is a big reason why tensions are high.
Sure – the “racial” undertones (even if not explicit in the actual court case itself) are what people are pissed about. A black kid went to buy skittles and tea, was deemed to be “suspicious”, and as a result of that suspicion is now dead. That’s fucking ridiculous.
But it sure as shit doesn’t help when news reporting is herpderping it up with false information as well. Like most controversies, it’s a sharknado of stupid all coming together to form one giant turd.
wait on, isn’t there also a grave problem with the linked article above in that again it accepts/presumes that zimmerman’s ‘version’ of what occurred that night IS ACCURATE/THE TRUTH, when there is in fact very little evidence that the way zimmerman claims it went down is truthful?
in the 8 (i think it was 8) police interviews his account is rife with inconsistencies, and the single ‘eyewitness’ testimony upon which a disproportionate weight of ‘proof’ has been placed is very dodgy, zimmerman’s known neighbor – assuming he’s even telling the truth – was forced to backtrack on his statement that martin was bringing a beatdown on zimmerman to what he really saw in the dark through the rain looking through venetian blinds was martin on top in a tussle and some ‘downward hand movement’, which is ENTIRELY consistent with the other distinct possibility, that the smaller Treyvon was frantically fighting for his life against an armed aggressor, and that zimmerman shot him. that treyvon was shot while on top of zimmerman means and proves NOTHING. also zimmerman’s neighbor says he thought zimmerman was yelling for help (which was ruled out early on by the FBI analysis of the audio evidence, then ruled inadmissible), which in an active tussle viewed in the dark in the rain which he admitted he couldn’t see clearly is quite a feat to be able to discern. there is no proof that the confrontation and ensuing struggle went down like zimmerman said, and further like i think cadavra mentioned there was no forensics to support treyvon having ‘savagely beaten’ zimmerman, contradicting zimmerman’s claim.
what the prosecution desperately needed was my cousin vinny.
(also, if anyone doubts zimmerman’s seething venom and hatred and paranoia, which is clearly racially motivated, listen to the police interview tapes, they are deeply disturbing – his cold, vicious attitude after having just killed a kid is truly scary)
Let one of the jurors speak — and its clear she’s thinking “Stand Your Ground Georgie!”
JUROR: Right. But that doesn’t make it right. I mean, it doesn’t make it — there’s not a right or a wrong. Even if he did reach for the gun, it doesn’t make any difference.
COOPER: How so?
JUROR: Well, because George had a right to protect himself at that point.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/15/3502047/zimmerman-juror-speaks-out-transcript.html#storylink=cpy
clearly some/all of the jurors believed the convenient unsworn story of zimmerman and his neighbor over the witness on the phone with treyvon at the time who overheard zimmerman confront treyvon, and the lack of evidence to support zimmerman’s story. i wonder why that is…
Christian – that’s NOT “Stand Your Ground” though. Stand Your Ground EXPLICITLY refers to not retreating, what the Juror was discussing was the threat of grievous bodily harm (which is the “Part 1” of the self-defense laws I discussed earlier).
ETA – the next 2 lines in your transcript are:
COOPER: So you believe that George Zimmerman really felt his life was in danger?
JUROR: I do. I really do.
That’s not discussing retreat – that’s discussing imminent danger.
[/ETA]
See, this is what I’m talking about – you’re claiming Stand Your Ground when it’s not being invoked. Just like a lot of the news reporting. Look, I think Zimmerman should have been tossed in jail – but I also think that the decision should be based on the facts we have, not the facts we want to be true.
How is what she said different than that? She claims Zimmerman did not retreat from being attacked because he had the right to defend himself…from the attack he instigated.
Please quote me the part where she claims ANYTHING – positive or negative – about retreating.
“Stand Your Ground EXPLICITLY refers to not retreating, ”
Ergo not retreating means you’re defending yourself.
>.<
I'll help you out here – she doesn't mention retreating. Nor does Cooper. Nor is Stand Your Ground raised. Nor was Stand Your Ground invoked at any time during the trial by the defense.
The only place retreating is a topic of conversation is inside your head.
Stop being a silly goose.
it’s just mincing words isn’t it. why isn’t this whole conversation about the fact that zimmerman is a liar?
let’s look at more damning evidence against zimmerman (and by ‘lets’ i mean me, since no one else seems interested in the actual evidence). the main wound on the back of zimmerman’s head is far too high up on his skull to have been sustained by his head being smashed to the ground as zimmerman claimed (and which was witnessed by NO-ONE, not the neighbor, nobody) – and the paramedics report said it looks like the wound was made by contact with an object. paramedics cleaned blood from his head that was fairly dried already, blood that that ran FORWARD towards his face, not consistent with being on your back. zimmerman had a flashlight with him that he claimed didn’t work, but a police witness described seeing zimmerman’s flashlight in the dark when police arrived, and it’s on record as being ON in the police report when police arrived at the scene, and Serino tested it and it was working (and he also likely contaminated it as evidence by touching it), another zimmerman lie. speculation that the high wound on the back of zimmerman’s head was self-inflicted by the flashlight as he began to concoct a story to make himself out to be the victim instead of the aggressor. NO BLOOD on the pavement where zimmerman claimed his head was bashed. in the police evidence photos, zimmerman’s clothes are in perfect pristine condition, not at all consistent with being the subject of a beat-down. the FRONT/toes of zimmerman’s shoes were soaked with water and grass-marked, not consistent with being on his back the majority of the time as claimed (if he was on his back the BACK/HEEL of his shoes would be wet/grass marked, the opposite of what true). nothing in the evidence is consistent with zimmerman’s story.
the physical evidence all points to an armed zimmerman being on top of treyvon for the majority of the time.
zimmerman has a history of domestic violence and using racial slurs; he lied at his bail hearing, causing his bail to be revoked; he’s a violent liar. and now he’s a free murderer.
Leah – I agree, Zimmerman’s story is NOT convincing. At all.
The problem though is it’s not enough for the prosecution to demonstrate that the defense is inconsistent and weak. They also have to match it with reasonable evidence of what DID happen – and that’s where they failed (and weren’t particularly assisted by the police department).
It’s the burden of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty – just demonstrating “He’s a liar, but we don’t really know what happened, just that it’s not what he said” isn’t sufficient.
“In fact, NO, “stand your ground” played NO role in the defense of neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman.”
Foamy, you’re having a silly conversation with your own imaginary facts now:
“Jurors discussed Florida’s controversial Stand Your Ground self-defense law before rendering their not-guilty verdict in George Zimmerman’s trial, one of the jurors told CNN’s Anderson Cooper.
The jurors struggled with the law and the jury instructions, said the juror, who spoke anonymously and was identified only by her court ID, B37.
“The law became very confusing. It became very confusing,” she told Cooper Monday night. “We had stuff thrown at us. We had the second-degree murder charge, the manslaughter charge, then we had self defense, Stand Your Ground.”
Juror B37 mentioned Stand Your Ground a second time of her own accord, saying the jury ultimately made its not-guilty verdict Saturday night based on the evidence and “because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground.”
Zimmerman waived his right to the Stand Your Ground immunity hearing, a pre-trial event that’s not spelled out in statute. But he was afforded the protections of Stand Your Ground, which is embedded in Florida’s self-defense laws. Its language, found in statute 766.012, was tailored to the Zimmerman trial’s jury instructions and said the following:
“If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
Despite the language on the jury-instruction form and B37’s comments about Stand Your Ground, some commentators have said it had nothing to do with the case because it was a standard self-defense case.
But Stand Your Ground is standard self defense in Florida.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/16/3502481/juror-we-talked-stand-your-ground.html#storylink=cpy
yeah i hear that foamy – the prosecution was just hopeless, anyone would think that amongst other things if they had just really hammered home these simple facts above – the forensic evidence, cuz juries love that shit nowadays – that completely contradict zimmerman’s story and ridiculous claim of self-defence, if they had vigorously pursued and proposed an alternate theory of zimmerman as the aggressor as supported by the forensic evidence refuting his story, that maybe they could have at least got a conviction for manslaughter, i don’t think that would have been beyond the realm of possibility – but they just fucked it up royally and let the martin family down just when they needed a prosecutorial team at the top of their game. it’s very sad.
I stand corrected – she DID comment on “Stand Your Ground”.
But, I will repeat – again – the defense did not invoke Stand Your Ground. It may have been considered by the Jurors, and included in the instructions, but it was not part of the defense.
Even reading the parts where she DOES mention “Stand Your Ground”, it sounds like she’s interpreting the law incorrectly because she talks about fear of grievous bodily harm – not retreating.
To quote:
JUROR: Right. Well, because of the heat of the moment and the stand your ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.
The only time Stand Your Ground was invoked during the trial was in outlining the self-defense statutes as part of the instructions. It was not part of the defense’s case – the defense even argued that it did not apply.
How the hell can you prove beyond a “reasonable doubt” the defendant is guilty when he doesn’t testify? And the only other major witness just happens to be, oh I don’t know, DEAD!!! This is a miscarriage of justice, but it goes to the heart of how the justice system works (or doesn’t work). Our system is built to release guilty people based on technicalities, a totally backwards way of working.
I don’t think Zimmerman testifying would have done anything – even under oath, there’s basically no-one to contradict him. All he has to say is “Trayvon attacked first” (nothing to say otherwise), “I couldn’t retreat because Trayvon was on top of me” (conflicting eyewitness accounts, but supported by firearm forensics), “I feared for my life” (inconclusive evidence based on injuries).
With months of rehearsal time, it’s unlikely he would fuck that up. At best the prosecution could establish him as unreliable, but that still doesn’t put his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
To put him away, the prosecution would have to establish some persuasive mix of:
* Zimmerman initiated the altercation.
* Zimmerman had the opportunity to disengage and didn’t take it.
* Zimmerman had no cause to fear for his life or bodily harm.
This case is clearly getting solved on a movie blog.
We’re getting close Lex. I’m preparing my report for the Department of Justice as I type.
Yeah, you have a better chance of getting laid on a blog than discussing a trial. Zimmerman should have been on that stand — not a Hannity interview. His lies and contradictions would have been exposed. That could have changed the minds of a few jurors. And you’re off this case now, Foamy.
Yeah, there’s a reason they didn’t put him on the stand. Dude would have either cracked or he would have come across like a liar.
Christian: Zimmerman should have been on that stand — not a Hannity interview.
Lenny Bruce: There is only what is. What could be or should be is a lie.
We don’t know what would happen if Zimmerman was on the stand, but that law where you don’t have to take the stand to defend yourself in a murder trial should be changed. It seems the entire process is about defending the rights of the accused and not at all about seeking justice for the murdered victim who can’t be there to tell their side of the story. It’s atrocious.
What’s more atrocious is how even the defenders of Zimmerman think that a grown man with MMA and gun training, armed with a gun, was a VICTIM of a 17 year old armed with Skittles. Pretty weak these armed tough guys, huh?
Holy shit dudes.
In this thread:
– If a 300lb linebacker is punching the shit out of me, and I reach for a gun and shoot, I automatically face a 3 year sentence.
– Repeal of the 5th amendment.
– Prosecution is apparently Tom Cruise and Zimmerman is Jack Nicholson just begging for the opportunity to confess.
– Repeal of presumption of innocence.
Look, I don’t know what world you guys want to live in, but the world I want to live in is where if I am accused of a crime then the prosecution has to prove my guilt beyond reasonable doubt and I have to do jack shit to help them.
Foamy, I get what you’re saying, but that doesn’t mean these issues aren’t a problem. The system worked as it was supposed to, and the outcome is inhumane and injust. For this one time, I defer to Adam Gopnik of The New Yorker:
“The trouble with the Bill of Rights, he argues, is that it emphasizes process and procedure rather than principles. The Declaration of the Rights of Man says, Be just! The Bill of Rights says, Be fair! Instead of announcing general principles—no one should be accused of something that wasn’t a crime when he did it; cruel punishments are always wrong; the goal of justice is, above all, that justice be done—it talks procedurally. You can’t search someone without a reason; you can’t accuse him without allowing him to see the evidence; and so on. This emphasis, Stuntz thinks, has led to the current mess, where accused criminals get laboriously articulated protection against procedural errors and no protection at all against outrageous and obvious violations of simple justice. You can get off if the cops looked in the wrong car with the wrong warrant when they found your joint, but you have no recourse if owning the joint gets you locked up for life. You may be spared the death penalty if you can show a problem with your appointed defender, but it is much harder if there is merely enormous accumulated evidence that you weren’t guilty in the first place and the jury got it wrong. Even clauses that Americans are taught to revere are, Stuntz maintains, unworthy of reverence: the ban on “cruel and unusual punishment” was designed to protect cruel punishments—flogging and branding—that were not at that time unusual.”
The NRA created Stand Your Ground. It’s another of their sick ploys to sell weapons. Their leadership is collectively insane and a threat to this nation. I’ll take Ted Nugent, who just spoke with Rick Perry and Sarah Palin before the NRA, at his word.
Jury B37 is walking back her statements and 4 other jurors are distancing themselves from her statements. This thing ain’t done yet.