Why are people not outraged about this?

I'll type slower this time Roulette Man. I'm not comparing the two cases; the cases could be the Scopes Monkey Trial and Marbury vs Madison for all it matters. But if you claim that a final verdict should end the discussion of one case, then it should logically follows that we should end discussion of all cases once the verdict is rendered.

Which is just advocating for willful ignorance. Because (educated) people will be talking about Scopes and Marbury and Brown vs Board of Education and Roe v Wade and Sacco & Vanzetti for years to come.

And Zimmerman too.

You still don't get it. You are mentally slow. Your analogy and comparison was worthless and made no sense. Have you ever heard of the term "logic"?

‘My take on it in the OJ case the prosecutors did a bad job so there was no conviction. It was somewhat understandable given the amount of money OJ spent on his defense. A jury often finds the simplest most non technical evidence the most persuasive. In the OJ case OJ trying on the glove and it not fitting was powerful. It was the prosecution’s mistake for letting him try on the glove.

I found some of the most interesting jury comments that came out of the Zimmerman case was how the jury thought that it was Zimmerman’s voice screaming for help on the 911 tape again very simple non technical evidence, but very powerful and effective.

I am totally outraged about "this". What outrages me is how do people turn into such animals with little regard for other human beings. I understand that serial killers are most likely mental cases. In the case mentioned here these are just cruel, twisted humans getting their kicks by having power over other humans. What really is scary is if one of these people acted alone I could stomach it a lot better but in this case five people hooked up and worked together to kidnap, sodomize, rape and torture two people and then dispose of them like yesterdays trash. If I approached anyone I know with the above ideas they would look at me like a sick pup and call 911 to have me checked out. It is amazing that five people so twisted could hook up. Damn right I am outraged that a group of people could behave this way.

Forkie, I swear, you crack me up. You type; "OJ Simpson" in rebuttal to some post than later on say"I never compared the two". You backpedal more than a one legged bicyclist, it is absolutely comical. I swear dude it's obvious you have a brain but you continue to let your mouth runneth over ie, you NEVER SHUT THE FUCK UP and keep sticking your foot in your own mouth. I figure about one in twenty of your post's is worthwhile ,the rest are garbage.

I suppose you just don't mind looking foolish because you seem to alway's do it when you could've just ducked out of a thread with a worthwhile post but decline to do so.

J

I didn't. Instead of "OJ" I could have written "Sacco & Vanzetti" or "Marbury vs. Madison" or "Roe v Wade." All are settled verdicts, and all are still discussed. Just like OJ...and Zimmerman.

But if I had written "Sacco & Vanzetti," treegirl would have probably thought it was a purse.

And if I had written "Marbury vs Madison," Roulette Man would have though it was two college teams.

And admit it jatki, if I had written "Roe v Wade" you would have figured it was some aquatic instructions.

And BobOrme, who is so uninformed he thinks that a prosecutor can compel a defendant to testify in this country, probably thought I was referring to Orange Juice.

But instead of the above, I dumbed it down and wrote "OJ." It takes effort to dumb things down enough so you guys get it. I wish you at least appreciated my efforts

The Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination applies when an individual is called to testify in a legal proceeding. Zimmerman was not called to testify. He couldn't refuse to answer a question when no question was asked.

Okay, you're getting better. Still wrong, but getting better.

The prosecution is not permitted to call the defendant as a witness. NOT PERMITTED! THEY CAN'T CALL HIM! Since you just refuse to believe truths I say, I'll let NOLO clue you in:

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that a defendant cannot "be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." In short, the defendant cannot be forced to speak. If the defendant chooses to remain silent, the prosecutor cannot call the defendant as a witness, nor can a judge or defense attorney force the defendant to testify.

See?

Here's how it works. Before trial, the prosecutor must submit a list of witnesses. They never put the defendant on the list because of the Fifth Amendment. However, if a prosecutor DID put the defendant on the list, the defendant's attorney would immediately object on Fifth Amendment grounds and the court would strike the defendant from the prosecutor's list.

Now, the defendant might list himself on his own witness list. But at trial, depending how it's going, the defendant may choose not to testify, like Zimmerman did here. Because if he DID testify, then the prosecutor would be able to cross-examine him. Just like OJ, Zimmerman didn't want to be cross-examined, and so he didn't testify. And so, at his trial, there was never any testimony from Zimmerman.

At some point, I hope you will concede that you were completely wrong, that

* American prosecutors can't force a defendant to testify;

* Zimmerman never gave any testimony

* Zimmerman never gave a statement under oath; and

* there's no Double Jeopardy problem should the USAG decide to prosecute him for civil rights crimes.

All of those things are true. I hope you're moving closer to accepting these truths.

The prosecution did not do a bad job in OJ. Marcia Clark was not a sympathetic prosecutor to many. The DNA evidence was overwhelming and OJ should have been found guilty.

You really are a sick little man. You should have never, ever offered the analogy of OJ. How desperate can a little man get?