But it was ?? Inappropriate:

unfitting, unseemly, unbecoming, unbefitting, improper, impolite; incongruous, out of place/keeping, inapposite, inapt, infelicitous, ill-suited; ill-judged, ill-advised; informal out of order/line; formal malapropos.


.

The position he holds has great influence :2 cents: :2 cents:

So he should stfu and stay neutral to avoid influencing the verdict.

18 USC § 1503 - Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally

it's weak, sure, but the influence is definitely there

a lot of shit is that. :2 cents: thank the lord he is not worried about your opinions

Doesn't the Prez have freedom of speech too?

After all, his office executes the laws. That's why the DOJ is under the executive branch. So it is entirely acceptable for the executor of laws to comment on legal cases. Preventing the President from commenting on cases would be like preventing the DA from commenting on cases...that would be absurd.

your not even a citizen :1orglaugh gfy law school degree?

not if gfy says no (not really :1orglaugh jokers)

the president is responsible for making sure "that the Laws be faithfully executed"

certainly going on public record only speaking to one side of an outstanding case is not allowing the law to be faithfully executed, it's swaying the court of public opinion in facor of one side.

the least he could have done was speak to both sides of the case, since he felt obliged to open his trap about it.

Fiddy assholes

It doesn't make sense for the Executive office to remain neutral. In order to execute the law faithfully, one must make a decision on who is guilty, and then present their case in front of a judge/jury. The judicial system must remain neutral, not the Executor.

Furthermore, the DOJ is within the Executive branch...are you saying the DOJ must present both sides remain neutral also? If so, the DOJ would never be able to charge anyone with a crime, given that it has to remain "neutral".

I didn't catch that.

Okay, so I popped open one of the files:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/151071226/...g-MAR-30-Rally

This seems to be a travel voucher for "technical assistance to the city of Sanford, event organizers, and law enforcement agencies for march and rally on March 31st".

What does this mean? Did the US government stage an event? Did the US government put it together? Or did they send a legal rep to make sure this rally didn't turn into a riot?

The emails look scary....

http://www.scribd.com/doc/153213030/All-Emails-Combined

The first in is from Politico which contains a very public statement from Obama? No surprise there.

The second email is from an activist which seems to be sent from a gmail account that has nothing to do with the US goverment.

The third email is an automated feed from the mayor's office repeating local news... It's quotes from news sources, not statements from any government office.

The fourth one is the same activist...

The firth one is from a yahoo address that seems to be a private group at a government "center" which is most likely used for everything from MADD to Boy Scouts.

I don't have time to read all of this, but five emails in and I'm not seeing a smoking gun that says "The US government sent a rep down to orginize a rally".

Seems to me the DOJ could have multiple reasons to send someone to Sanford when a case has become so large that it's being broadcast nationally from start to finish.

Sheep.

* all laws are based on innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. that's fundamental.

2. our system is also based on an alleged criminal to be tried in a court of law, not on television in a court of public opinion.

c. finally, our system is based on a judge or jury finding the person on trial guilty or innocent based on the testimony and evidence presented during that trial. not presented before the trial by a 3rd party on television, during a speech.

:)

Exactly !


.

Lets not forget he's also a lawyer specializing in Constitutional Law. It's not like he's a drunken playboy billionaire who bought his way into office and has no idea what he's saying when it comes to legal matters.

guess that 'defense' is available for everyone.

I agree with all those points...but it doesn't speak to your assertion that the Executive branch must remain neutral.

Like I said before, only the Judicial branch must remain neutral. The Executive branch, by it's nature, must NOT remain neutral. How else is the DOJ going to charge people with crimes if it must remain neutral at the same time?

(btw, as to point #3, I don't believe the President's comments were entered into evidence anyhow.)

that travel voucher alone is proof of DOJ involvement..

i'm saying that by going on television the executive branch perverted the process. their job is to present their case in court, not on tele before the trial even starts. sure they are there to prosecute, but in court.

if i were a shark defense attorney i would be all over the fact i can only choose from a tainted jury pool. zimmerman killed obama's would-be only son. :(

in fact, in thinking about it, i would even strategize my defense on this issue based entirely on you being exactly on point.

the president is leading a lynch mob to prosecute zimmerman on television without due process since obama is in charge of executing the law/head of the doj.

i'd nitpick the crap outta that in the public forum! :1orglaugh

But the Executive Branch has freedom of speech just as much as the defense attorneys. It would be unfair to muzzle the Executive branch, yet allow the defense attorneys to go on TV regularly like they did. Furthermore, it's the Judiciary's duty to protect the process, not the Executor. If the judge felt that outside comments were "perverting the process", she could have placed a gag order on the case.

http://minerva5.files.wordpress.com/...cism-spot2.jpg

Don't even need sheets to spot the racists in this thread... :1orglaugh :upsidedow :helpme

If you listen to what Obama said on this matter, back on March 23rd (in answer to a question at a press conference), the President merely stated that he has empathy for any parent that has had a child killed by gun violence, and that they should expect that the case would be fully reviewed, and tried if the DA felt that a trial was necessary.

Mentioning that Trayvon might look like his son if he had a son, was simply Obama pointing out that Trayvon Martin could have been anyone's son, even his, but apparently to closed/warped minds, it meant something entirely different. :disgust

:stoned

ADG

That wouldn't work, because due process for criminal cases is a standard only required in a court-of-law. Due process is not required outside of the court proceedings here.

just like every president has personally invited the players of each racially charged scenario?

Obama inviting that police officer and professor to the white house, is what makes his weighing in on this case inappropriate, (not even getting into his being the first black president).

Race, gender and Sexual ordination are all bullshit.
The only war is the class war.

it absolutely would work. arguing law isn't about arguing law, it's about persuasion.

of course due process is not required outside a courtroom, i didn't think i had to specify i was referring to courtroom processes and a defendant having the right to an untainted jury pool. and i can bring in dozens of experts that can dissect that speech down into the most sophisticated data you've ever seen showing its influence on masses people. :)

Again your plan wouldn't work because the President's speech was not entered into trial evidence in the first place...so there is nothing to dissect.

Furthermore, the defense already agreed and were satisfied with the current jurors. Obviously ZIM felt they were untainted enough to proceed with trial or else they would have made a motion to change trial venue.

my plan would absolutely work, i never said this was about testimony. i would bring in experts into the court of public opinion, where the game is being played, where obama felt the need to jump in, and it absolutely would work. public opinion gets swayed by shiny displays of beer, getting them confused on a legal matter is a no-brainer.

furthermore doesn't really matter here, i am and always have been speaking of my own views on the matter not on how the case played out. certainly the defense had a smorgasbord of things to choose from to hinge their defense on, bypassing obama's lack of discretion isn't a big deal. nevertheless, it was there for the picking to sway public opinion, they may have even.


again, i'm not saying obama doesn't have a right to open his trap and yap it, i'm saying it's behavior unbecoming of a president in this case and it also left the defense a big opportunity to bash the prosecution in a public forum, from the top down, if they so chose.

it could be grounds for a mistrial. if the president being a very influential person can create bias towards one side or the other it taints the idea of innocent until proven guilty. nixon's comment on the charles manson trial comes to mind. there wasn't a mistrial because manson had poor representation but it should of been.

oh, also, the speech isn't evidence, i would bring it up during jury selection process, if necessary & makes sense in light of my other jury pool selection strategies and my client could afford it.

I agree. I think that the president is a very smart man that knows exactly what he is doing. I think that what he, and the DOJ are doing is to stir up a bunch of crap for all of us to pay attention to, while they are spying on our emails, phone calls and internet browsing, putting video drones in the air over us, giving themselves the power to shut down the internet on the word of the president, closing more abilities of the citizens to escape with their own money, enacting new aspects of the NDAA, getting up to more war shenanigans overseas, etc, etc, etc....

This has F@#$% all to do with race or justice or the law. It has everything to do with keeping Americans divided, and distracted.


The responses to my post are pure proof that it is working perfectly! :Oh crap





.

well, no.

are you really of the mindset the rest of us can only focus/think about 1 thing at a time? :1orglaugh

:2 cents: :2 cents: your just fueling them to come at another angle. remember when obama first ran? i dont want no *igger president :helpme if he wins there will be a race war! :1orglaugh

Or possibly paranoid delusions... :winkwink:

http://www.thecanadiandaily.ca/wp-co.../05/536292.jpg

What a hoot it will be to listen to you vent on GFY for 7+ more years if Hillary gets elected in 2016. :1orglaugh

http://conservative.org/wp-content/u...aryforpres.png

I did not follow the trial closely. It sounds like Zimmerman was well represented. Now it will be for a jury to decide.

http://image2.findagrave.com/photos/...3261719049.jpg

http://oliviaacole.files.wordpress.c...von-martin.jpg

:stoned

ADG

hmm...it sounded like your plan was to dissect the President's speech during a trial, inside a court room, when you said:

i can promise ya you can try and gotcha me all ya want and it won't make you right or make a diff. i'm chatting in a thread, it's not gonna make a difference anywhere.


nevertheless, certainly you had the option of seeing that my comment you quoted is 2 thoughts.
1. tainted jury pool and being able to argue that.
2. playing the game of swaying public opinion.



hmm all ya want, feel good. :)

I am not trying to play gotcha with you...just trying to figure out what you are trying to argue in the first place. First I thought you, assuming ZIM's defense role, where going to argue the inappropriateness of the President's speech by having expert witnesses dissect the speech in a court of law. That's why I responded that your plan wouldn't work...and I gave you the reasons why.

Now if all you are saying is that you simply want to dissect the President's speech in front of the general public, outside of a court proceeding, then that's fine...no one is preventing you from doing that...have the freedom of speech to do so. You don't have to follow the rules of a trial court.

Has anyone in this thread mentioned yet that race has nothing to do with this criminal case? The only "profiling" spoken of has been his use of "these assholes always get away" and "fucking punks" which go to his state of mind certainly, but not racism.