Random Thoughts Thread

[muhanad]

I'm with you. Avocado and things made from it are disgusting.

Good. So I'm not the only man in the USA not partaking in Guacamole during the Super Bowl.

Blasphemy! Guacamole is AMAZING!

[prfsnl_gmr]

Avocado is aweome, and since it is in season right now, you should be stocking up on fresh ones (and eating them immediately - with just a touch of salt - because their shelf life isn't that great).

Also, the Zimmerman trial is not that interesting, and it will be a victory for the prosecution if he is convicted of manslaughter, which - since the jury asked for a direction on it - I think will be the verdict. (There are already multiple grounds for appeal, however, and ultimately, I think that he will take a plea deal.)

[Luke]

Learning CB/Military Radio codes has been nothing short of fun.

10-17, I've got a 10-100 with a 10-12. 10-3.

[Luke]

Yuck, I can't stand that stuff. I've even tried the low sodium one and it's still WAY too salty for my tastes.

That's why I said to use a fairy sprinkle of it. It's a mix of salt, cumin, chili powder, paprika, garlic and onion, right? Used lightly (a pinch per whole avocado) I love the stuff.

[indecks]

Avocados.

. They spoil quicker than freshly cut apples, and the preserving methods kill the flavor.

Yep yep. Typically I'll order guacamole (THE GWACK) at a restaurant, but you're absolutely right about the spoiling/ruining.

There's a food truck here in Austin called Izzoz Tacos. He's got a fried avocado taco that will knock your block off. But it takes a few minutes for him to make because he opens new avocados on demand. They are so god damned delicious it's not even funny and my mouth is watering and I wish the truck wasn't downtown because i already drove downtown today. God dammit.

[Retrodude]

If Zimmerman walks, it will be due in large part to that horrible closing statement from the prosecution. Whiny, aimless, and weakly argued. There were some good points there, but they were made poorly.

Difference of perception, I guess, but I thought they did an excellent job of THOROUGHLY debunking Zimmerman's version of events, pointing out in great detail how ludicrous and, frankly, impossible his claims are. In fact, I would go as far as to predict that they've already won. Seriously, how is the defense going to top that? What are they going to come back with to convince the jury to disregard the complete shellacking they took today? On a related note, I thought the prosecutor's best line (probably unintentional) was "the truth does not lie". I'm gonna start using that.

[Blu]

If Zimmerman walks, it will be due in large part to that horrible closing statement from the prosecution. Whiny, aimless, and weakly argued. There were some good points there, but they were made poorly.

Difference of perception, I guess, but I thought they did an excellent job of THOROUGHLY debunking Zimmerman's version of events, pointing out in great detail how ludicrous and, frankly, impossible his claims are. In fact, I would go as far as to predict that they've already won. Seriously, how is the defense going to top that? What are they going to come back with to convince the jury to disregard the complete shellacking they took today? On a related note, I thought the prosecutor's best line (probably unintentional) was "the truth does not lie". I'm gonna start using that.

The defense brought forth the testimony from the foremost authority on forensic pathology. I'm not sure how compelling of an account you need. I believe that was the turning point of this trial.

I still think Zimmerman ignored orders of the local PD, and killed a child. I think he'll get the manslaughter conviction.

[Retrodude]

I think he'll get the manslaughter conviction.

That would be fine. He needs to be held accountable for what he did, so any conviction, even the lesser one, would be a just result. I'm listening to the defense's closing now and it almost sounds like he's arguing jury nullification. As far as I know, that's not allowed, so he needs to tread carefully.

EDIT: Now he's trying to argue that racial profiling is justified. Is he serious?

EDIT: Now he's arguing that Zimmerman's hateful statements in the recorded call were, in fact, not. How stupid does he think they are?

EDIT: They're running the animation...

EDIT: ...aaaand it does absolutely nothing to disprove anything the prosecution said yesterday.

EDIT: They're taking a 15 minute break. My reading so far is that the defense is floundering. Their arguments are extremely weak and definitely not compelling. They said they would prove Zimmerman's innocence and so far, they haven't done that. I think they've realized that it's impossible to argue self defense at this point so their whole case boils down to "ignore what the prosecution said". If he's acquitted based on that, then I would say that any resulting moral outrage would be completely justified.

EDIT: The defense resumes...

EDIT: Now he's telling the jury "ignore Zimmerman's statements to police, pretend they don't exist". Really?

EDIT: Now he's telling them to acquit because "fortunately" (his word) they can't prove it wasn't Zimmerman screaming for help. *headdesk*

[dsheinem]

My reading so far is that the defense is floundering.

Your sharp legal mind is clearly firing on all cylinders.

O'Mara is so much better in style, in substance, and in presenting his case than the prosecutor yesterday. The defense has a much easier job, and he's doing everything he has to in order to remind the jury of the importance of doubt.

In the end, there is and always was a LOT of doubt in this case. NO ONE other than Zimmerman KNOWS what happened. He's reinforcing that. Smart.

Manslaughter is still possible, but I'd say even that is unlikely. I'm guessing we'll see either acquittal or a hung jury.

[Retrodude]

I think he'll get the manslaughter conviction.

That would be fine. He needs to be held accountable for what he did, so any conviction, even the lesser one, would be a just result. I'm listening to the defense's closing now and it almost sounds like he's arguing jury nullification. As far as I know, that's not allowed, so he needs to tread carefully.

EDIT: Now he's trying to argue that racial profiling is justified. Is he serious?

EDIT: Now he's arguing that Zimmerman's hateful statements in the recorded call were, in fact, not. How stupid does he think they are?

EDIT: They're running the animation...

EDIT: ...aaaand it does absolutely nothing to disprove anything the prosecution said yesterday.

EDIT: They're taking a 15 minute break. My reading so far is that the defense is floundering. Their arguments are extremely weak and definitely not compelling. They said they would prove Zimmerman's innocence and so far, they haven't done that. I think they've realized that it's impossible to argue self defense at this point so their whole case boils down to "ignore what the prosecution said". If he's acquitted based on that, then I would say that any resulting moral outrage would be completely justified.

EDIT: The defense resumes...

EDIT: Now he's telling the jury "ignore Zimmerman's statements to police, pretend they don't exist". Really?

EDIT: Now he's telling them to acquit because "fortunately" (his word) they can't prove it wasn't Zimmerman screaming for help. *headdesk*

Continuing:

He's still arguing that racial profiling was the right choice in this case. I can't believe this guy.

EDIT: He told the jury "you're not allowed to speculate" knowing full well THAT'S WHAT JURIES DO. THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVE ALWAYS DONE. Is he crazy or just stupid?

EDIT: Now he's trying to misdirect the jury with the completely irrelevant question of how well Chantel (sp?) knew Martin. What does that have to do with anything?