Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Outcome of the Zimmerman trial was correct

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 12:00 am

I was asked by a friend, “What is your opinion of the Martin and Zimmerman trial outcome?” Seldom am I asked for an opinion, but ever ready to give one, here it is:

First, should George Zimmerman even have been on trial? Obviously the legal community did not think so, yet a charge was eventually forthcoming. The issue went to trial and a “not guilty” verdict was handed down.

So, as to my opinion: One might ask, based upon what he or she might have read in the press, if roles were reversed would Zimmerman look like Bush’s son? Would the Attorney General Eric Holder call for a federal civil rights investigation? Would Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson come on to the media in defense of a hard-working Latino? Would Michele Obama again claim, for the second time, she is proud to be an American? Would Nancy Pelosi, for the first time, keep her “off the cuff” opinions to herself? And finally, would some of those many voting apologists realize that politics, not laws, are the overriding factor in today’s White House?

I do think the death of a young man was a tragedy, but under the prevailing guidelines the decision was correct. I think most of us, both sides, know the answers to these probing questions. But to answer them honestly could surely brand one politically vulnerable and grossly naive.

Richard Viall

Woodbridge

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don't pretend you're someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don't insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.

Welcome to the discussion.

132 comments:

  • Mike Adams posted at 8:14 am on Fri, Aug 2, 2013.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1271

    Mr. Kinderman, you, unfortunately, are the exception to what has become the right's standard form of descriptors of those on the left. You have a much better vocabulary and writing style. While I find your form really grating occasionally, you are the exception.

    Why do you not call on posters like bob and joe to clean it up? Maybe we shouldn't complain..... their lords like limbaugh, levine, hannity, etc. all engage in this low form of expression.

    "You can't, so you opt to ridicule the messenger instead.
    RIDICULE, the liberals "go to" defense when they have absolutely no credible argument." I don't recall anyone from the left speaking of GHWB, GWB, or RWR, using the same form.

    "On a lighter note, I heard George Zimmerman is going to change his name to Ben Ghazi so no liberal will ever utter his name again."...yeah...very funny. I don't know of any liberals (and apparently according to joebob, these are the only type of poeple I know since I used to teach school) either saying this or thinking it's funny.

    So where could this type of satire come from? I doubt joebob or bobjoe have the intellect necessary to come up with these types of quips, yet listen to any limbaugh program and it's filled with low brow references to Democratic notables like "Dingy Harry Reid" or "Sheets Byrd". Fortunately for listeners like bobjoe, programs like limbaugh's provide many excellent offerings to demonstrate sub-average expressions which many of his listeners repeat mindlessly. He calls it "the limbaugh echo".

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 7:39 am on Thu, Aug 1, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2255

    C’mon now, Mr. Adams, there are very few contributors to this forum and elsewhere who don’t reduce their comments to name-altering/calling silliness - from both sides. As far as conservatives go I’m one who does not believe such tactics do much good in support of whatever argument(s) are in play.

    So let’s not infer that conservatives are the only ones guilty. You can do better than that.

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 6:11 am on Wed, Jul 31, 2013.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1271

    Rachael MadCow
    Chris MadThews
    Heapin' Helpin' of liberal dumpster stew

    You can't, so you opt to ridicule the messenger instead.
    RIDICULE, the conservatives "go to" defense when they have absolutely no credible argument.

    It is incredible, how vapid can a single person be?

    I may have to re-think the plagiarist....I thought when left to his own abilities, he had nothing to offer. Juxtapose (that means compare side by side..maybe your private college didn't teach you that) your contributions (which have to be entirely original, no half educated individual can rely on ridicule and innuendo entirely) are nothing but what you accuse liberals of. You have contributed nothing to this issue that wasn't incorrect (again, that means nothing you say has been true), sarcastic, and mostly an embarrassment to yourself. Are you the archetypal (again, next time go to a public school. ("An original model or type after which other similar things are patterned) conservative: sits around all day complaining about everything. Complains about stuff that isn't even true.

     
  • Doug Chaney posted at 5:52 am on Wed, Jul 31, 2013.

    advocate Posts: 499

    you tube? ROFLMFAO!

     
  • Doug Chaney posted at 5:51 am on Wed, Jul 31, 2013.

    advocate Posts: 499

    You must be an Ann Coulter fan?

     
  • Doug Chaney posted at 5:50 am on Wed, Jul 31, 2013.

    advocate Posts: 499

    You don't remember the older LIBERAL conservatives back in the day? Like yourself?

     
  • Doug Chaney posted at 5:48 am on Wed, Jul 31, 2013.

    advocate Posts: 499

    Joe, why do LIBERALS bother you so much?

     
  • robert maurer posted at 4:25 pm on Tue, Jul 30, 2013.

    mason day Posts: 437

    I get your nuance.Responsibility should be accepted by those responsible in both instances,right? If I were Zimmerman, I'd change my name, see if I qualify for the witness protection program,etc. He's got a triple load of bad wanting a piece of him. I would not want to deal with the bikers who rallied for Martin in DC. 700 were allowed, but there were a lot more, not to mention those who didn't appear.I could tell you true stories regarding biker groups but that would bring an almost immediate death to me, since I signed my name in blood(literally). to prove myself and vow to silence. I almost feel sorry for Zimmerman. I said ALMOST. There are consequences to one's actions and Zimmerman... God pity his soul.

     
  • robert maurer posted at 10:55 pm on Mon, Jul 29, 2013.

    mason day Posts: 437

    Joe, take a break and look where I told everyone to look . Your 559pm Monday post is listed on the timeline i mentioned Mr. Whittless is just a bandwagon jumper.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 4:50 pm on Mon, Jul 29, 2013.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1798

    So, because it is "more than a week old", that means it doesn't qualify as something to be concerned about? Seems lately liberals have plenty they wish everyone would forget about.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 4:16 pm on Mon, Jul 29, 2013.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1798

    On a lighter note, I heard George Zimmerman is going to change his name to Ben Ghazi so no liberal will ever utter his name again.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 4:14 pm on Mon, Jul 29, 2013.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1798

    Seriously, Rachael MadCow, Chris MadThews? They are total whack jobs and the liberals hang on every word they say. Why don't you offer proof what Bill Whittle says is not correct? You can't, so you opt to riducule the messenger instead.
    RIDICULE, the liberals "go to" defense when they have absolutely no credible argument.

     
  • robert maurer posted at 2:23 pm on Mon, Jul 29, 2013.

    mason day Posts: 437

    Joanne; Have you checked out CNN's timeline to the whole Zimmerman/Martin trial process? I think some had it right all along, where others, well... they should check it out too, then tell us all what the system is all about.Whittle dee dee,Whittle dee dum,

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 1:32 pm on Mon, Jul 29, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2693

    Gosh darn those "Conspiracy Theory websites" such as the Washington Times.

    ROFLMAO...[lol]
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/10/doj-helped-facilitate-anti-zimmerman-protests-flor/?page=all

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 12:59 pm on Mon, Jul 29, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4310

    Seriously - "Afterburner with Bill Whittle?"

    He certainly puts Andrew Liebich to shame with his made-up BS though.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 12:55 pm on Mon, Jul 29, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4310

    According to ALL of your Conspiracy Theory websites. Other than that, there's no proof that ever happened, except in the minds of all of your fellow CT's that believe anything.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 12:53 pm on Mon, Jul 29, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4310

    Just back from his suspension for constantly name-calling and insulting people and in his first sentence calls everyone "zombies."

    Please, LNS, get rid of this person once and for all!

     
  • Doug Chaney posted at 6:27 am on Mon, Jul 29, 2013.

    advocate Posts: 499

    And what do you mean by "Barry's Boy"?

     
  • Doug Chaney posted at 6:26 am on Mon, Jul 29, 2013.

    advocate Posts: 499

    You tube? Sponge Bob? Same difference for factual information, Joe. Are you channel surfing this morning?

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 5:59 am on Mon, Jul 29, 2013.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1798

    Not a word from Barry's Boy, Holder, about the New Black Panther party offering a $10,000 "Wanted: Dead or Alive" reward on George Zimmerman. Apparently they are allowed to publicize terroristic threats with impunity.

    Here is a youtube clip that offers up evidence the liberal media ignored or distorted.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrp8A2x2oN4

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 7:01 pm on Sun, Jul 28, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2693

    The DOJ used taxpayer dollars to fund anti-Zimmerman protests beginning over a year ago Mike. Apparently you have some catching up to do.

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 6:08 pm on Sun, Jul 28, 2013.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1271

    This information is like a week or more old.

    Can you find something more current to copy and paste?

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 9:22 am on Sun, Jul 28, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2693

    The "Community Relations Service" unit of Obama's DOJ was tasked with assisting community groups in Florida with oganizing and running demonstrations in favor of putting George Zimmerman on trial in the first place zombies. Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the DOJ on April 24, 2012. 125 pages were given to JW on May 30, 2012. JW then administratively appealed the request on June 5, 2012 and obtained 222 pages more on March 6, 2013. One might ponder why the DOJ Civil Rights Division rushed to Florida in the first place and took sides once the racial furnace was sufficiently stocked. Instead of calming racial tensions, Obama's DOJ took sides. Instead of calming the mob, the DOJ joined it, provided training for it and even arranged police escorts. Forget informing the public. It's more important to maintain the narrative that describes "Justice for Travon" than any backwards, old fashioned notion of reporting the truth. Will Holder ever be confronted with the facts of this story? Not one single major media outlet has reported on these explosive documents. This is justice, race-hystler style.

     
  • robert maurer posted at 3:33 pm on Sat, Jul 27, 2013.

    mason day Posts: 437

    Ed; I've followed the Zimmerman/Martin trial since it was in my face. However I witnessed Al (not too sharp) Sharpton urging the black community to show restraint.(Fox news) I was blown away, since this is not his or Jesse Jackson's method of operation. Something's up and I'm sure I'm not going to like it. You said it best regarding these 2, among others. Let me rephrase: " I'm not dead yet, so you gots to listen to me.We are the Gods of the black folk."In my experiences, many blacks who are trying to make something of themselves, regard them with a scoff.

     
  • robert maurer posted at 2:57 pm on Sat, Jul 27, 2013.

    mason day Posts: 437

    I believe there was a lack of communication between the two parties. Would it have been different if they would have communicated to each other instead of both being on the phone to different parties instead of peacefully settling their concerns? I would like to believe so. Hopefully society can learn something from this. A [thumbup] to all who believe we spend too much time on the phone, online and not getting to know those around us.

     
  • Ed Walters posted at 2:19 pm on Sat, Jul 27, 2013.

    the old dog Posts: 353

    More on race with a different side. Just read where 7 people, including the killer, compliments of a SWAT team killed the killer in Hialeaih Fla. No race was mentioned, because of that the riot was called off, even though there were black people involved. Makes you wonder will the Rev. Al or Jessie leave the media circus while the Martin / Zimmerman is still next to the front page? Most likely not, since these race hustlers go where they can get on TV or names in the paper.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 1:37 pm on Sat, Jul 27, 2013.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1798

    Bobbin, will you please notarize a "Joe Baxter doesn't actually exist" statement? It would save me tens of thousands of dollars in taxes.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 1:16 pm on Sat, Jul 27, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2255

    Mr. Maurer - I think there’s a lot of shared responsibility here - by both Zimmerman and Martin – as well as by so many other “players” during the trial. Of course we’ll never hear Travon Martin’s side of the story. And that makes it difficult to reach any real closure at least insofar as culpability is concerned. Unfortunately, that is what makes crimes of death so difficult to prosecute. Just like Marcia Clarke of O.J. Simpson fame, this ADA probably believed the case was going to be a slam-dunk. Well, in my experience with criminal trials during my years serving as a Legal Services Specialist in the Air Force rarely are any cases easy. There are usually surprises. But here (again) the prosecution didn’t get beyond the reasonable doubt standard.

    I also agree that when any young person dies needlessly it is a tragedy. Regardless of what was going through his mind at the time (was Rachel Jeantel being truthful during an interview after testifying where she now asserts that Martin was fearful of being raped by a homosexual? Or was she lying then or during her actual testimony?), Trayvon Martin’s life was just beginning - he should have had the chance to become a man.

    Regardless, too many lives are now terribly damaged because of what I believe was a rush to judgment. But that’s just me doing my own Monday morning quarter-backing. Nothing I offer here will change anything.

    So, I think this is a good time to sign-off and move on to other interesting topics of the day. I’m relieved that this particular debate didn’t get too far out of control; it makes thinking out loud that much more enjoyable.

     
  • robert maurer posted at 12:08 pm on Sat, Jul 27, 2013.

    mason day Posts: 437

    Mr. Kinderman; This has been a good opinion based on experience debate. Here's my 2 cents worth: Zimmerman was charged for the wrong crime. Of course he did not plan to kill Martin, so any murder charge is off the table, however an involuntary manslaughter charge may have been appropriate. The animated, loudmouth prosecutor,looking to make a name for himself, went for a murder charge and even the most "idiotic" jurist could follow instructions set forth by the judge.I blame the idiotic prosecutor for doing the wrong things at the right time,wrong charge, right case.However,Zimmerman is still responsible for this fiasco in my opinion.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 9:47 am on Sat, Jul 27, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2255

    After a full and complete investigation, it was concluded that race had nothing to do with what happened that night. And there is no possible way that Trayvon Martin’s civil rights were violated - that could only have occurred had Zimmerman been an actual police officer.

    Of course there are some lessons to be learned because of this case, but to create issues out of thin air does no good. As far as I’m concerned, this is what is wrong with America today. A jury found a man not guilty - and just because there are those who disagree with their decision, they still want this man to “pay for what he done.” (Ignorant phrasing intentional due to the ignorance permeating our society.)

    While I believe it’s time to move on, I’m sure there will be a wrongful death case filed against Mr. Zimmerman. This time it will be necessary for him to take the stand to tell his side of the story; the burden of proof shifts in a civil trial. Maybe after that proceeding those demanding justice might find some. Of course another court might come to the same conclusion as the criminal jury - what then? Jackson, Sharpton, et al., back to stir the flames of racial discontent? Will this end only when and if someone exacts their own personal form of justice and someone else dies? It has to stop.

     
  • CATHERINE ERICKSON posted at 9:45 pm on Fri, Jul 26, 2013.

    FRITZY9 Posts: 17

    Mr Zimmermand had no reason to follow this young man. He shoukd have continied to drive to the grocery store as he stated he was doing before he saw Trayvon Martin. He profiled the kid nased on his race AND his appearance/clothing. Trayvon is not here to tell how scared he was. He was a TEENAGER walking home minding his own busines talking pn his cell phone! Mr Zimmerman violated Trayvon's civil rights and also confronted him causing an alter ation and then was scared and murdered Trayvon. Its is sick and disgusting and he is a murderer. Racism is alive and well in America still. Try imagining being Trayvon that night... Not George. The gun shoukd never have been there... Neighborhood watch people are supposed to observe only from a safe place and call the police! And are not supposed to be armed. I do believe the prosecutors lost this case from poor prosecution. They blue it. Trayvon deserved better and so did his family. It saddens me that we are still at this place in America. :(

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 7:44 pm on Fri, Jul 26, 2013.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1271

    Let's summarize:
    Trayvon Martin was walking home, minding his own business.
    (Martin's school discipline, juvenile interactions with police, his girl friend, fighting, none of these issues are visible by just looking at him are invisible. He could have
    been coming home from choir practice.

    George Zimmerman was following him (stalking him is more like it) in his car. As
    part of a neighborhood watch group, shadowing, but at least holding back
    from some distance, is a worthy activity, notifying police and keeping a
    unknown person in sight while waiting for police to arrive.
    George Zimmerman called the police to report that Martin was walking down the
    street minding his own business.
    The police dispatcher told Zimmerman that they (public safety) didn't think it was a
    good idea for Zimmerman to get out and detain or question or interact with
    Martin and that he should stay in his car until police arrive.
    George Zimmerman got out of his car and confronted Martin (who was walking
    home, minding his own business) with his skittles and ice tea (the purpose of
    the combination of ice tea and skittles is irrelevant to the issue.

    It is at this point that a crime is about to be committed by Trayvon Martin.
    Martin, who from most accounts, confronts Zimmerman and wants to know why he
    is being followed. Did he think Zimmerman was some sort of child molester?
    The meeting that Zimmerman now has on his hands is an angry young man, tired of
    being always suspected of doing something, being confronted by somebody
    he has never met. At some point the interaction becomes physical and
    Zimmerman is losing the fight. Martin is beating Zimmerman badly (by
    Zimmerman's own accounts), Zimmerman, believing he may very well die
    without some sort of intervention pulls his concealed weapon and shoots
    Martin, killing him.
    Zimmerman has committed no crime. He has defended his life with lethal force.

    An alternative outcome of this could have been if Zimmerman stayed in his car as requested by the police dispatcher (commands given by a dispatcher are not considered command given by police officers, but in this case, it would have been prudent to do so.). The police arrive, question Martin, let him go as he has committed no crime. The police commend Zimmerman for remaining in his car, staying in communication, being an outstanding witness. In this scenario, Zimmerman does not end up a pariah. Trayvon Martin lives another day. Everyone is happy.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 7:23 pm on Fri, Jul 26, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4310

    Actually, any person who adamantly REFUSES to address directly or even name the person they are responding to in this forum (actually, I AM THE ONLY ONE this person never addresses by name) could never be considered an idiot.

    More appropriately a word that starts with "c," ends with "d."

    No guts, but demands all the glory.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 7:20 pm on Fri, Jul 26, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4310

    Yes, it is difficult to believe that their exists identical twins of disdain and self-righteousness - that "both" love to chow down of their sense of self-importance.

    One actually does not exist in Lodi. The other adamantly denies that he lives, has lived, or has ever desired to live in Lodi.

    Suspect.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 5:33 pm on Fri, Jul 26, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2255

    What, do you actually believe that others haven’t escaped conviction in our criminal court system? Of course they have! Remember the adage: “It’s better for four guilty men to go free than one innocent man to be imprisoned,” or words to that effect.

    Is this “not right?” Along with the standard of “reasonable doubt,” the saying above are cornerstones of our system. Considering (again) that it’s my belief the prosecution simply didn’t do their job adequately, the jury had no choice but to render the verdict that they did. Simply because they might have thought him guilty of the crime, unless the prosecution provides enough evidence to obliterate the doubt, it is their absolute duty to set him free. So as far as that is concerned, they did the “right” thing - under the law.

    I find it amazing that that concept has yet to sink in.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 4:45 pm on Fri, Jul 26, 2013.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1342

    I aint no lawyer but somethings not right when the juror herself thinks George got away with murder.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 3:16 pm on Fri, Jul 26, 2013.

    Walt Posts: 993

    "see no hatred"

    A flatulent dog don't smell his own either!

    [smile]

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 3:14 pm on Fri, Jul 26, 2013.

    Walt Posts: 993

    "voir dire"

    Monsieur Jerry...

    Perhaps you should ditch the flat cap and get a beret???

    [beam]

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 3:12 pm on Fri, Jul 26, 2013.

    Walt Posts: 993


    "I do NOT consider myself an idiot"

    Fine.

    How about neurotic??

    [lol]

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 1:35 pm on Fri, Jul 26, 2013.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1271

    Joanne: I've shined on a jury summons once. They sent me another one about three months later. I wonder if their filing system is so chaotic they don't know that you were called 6 months ago. If they did, they wouldn't send you another one within the same calendar year.

    On the other hand, you're friends husband will now never be selected to serve on a jury. The state would probably be reluctant to keep someone who was arrested and fined 500 bones for NOT showing up to jury duty. Not a good way to get "fair" men and women to serve.

    I am beginning to think Joe and Bob are the same person. Do you get the same impression. It's been done before.

    Maybe they (he) has so much hate and disdain for their (his) betters that their (his) anger colors every aspect of their (his) lives (life). Liberals should count themselves blessed they don't possess better writing, logic, and historical knowledge skills. Every post involves just moving around the same 25-30 words.
    Guess that's what a good "private school" education gets you: illiteracy or at least limited vocabulary skills.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 1:31 pm on Fri, Jul 26, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2255

    Of course there wouldn't be any other purpose to the question. When one presupposes that people who serve on juries are idiots and that one person doing the presupposing admits to being a part of a jury, what is so wrong with wondering (and then asking) whether or not that person perceives him/herself as an "idiot?"

    Because if said person does NOT see her/himself as an idiot, then that leaves wide open the probability that neither do those others who serve on juries; unless of course there is just one exception to the “idiot” rule – that he/she is the ONLY non-idiot to have ever served on a jury. I served on a jury in the 1980's. I do NOT consider myself an idiot. That would then make two non-idiots to have served on a jury.

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 1:13 pm on Fri, Jul 26, 2013.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1271

    Apparently it was resolved amicably. I believe both sides had to agree to abide by the jury's decision prior to hearing the case, except some sort of malpractice. I think it was stipulated prior to hearing that this was an unusual composition of the jury. I'm thinking this was sometime in the early 90's.

    So next time you go into the courthouse....look like you're doing something important!

    Oh, btw...I once tried to get on a jury prior to my call date...teachers-3 months off-jury duty assigned first week of school......and was told I couldn't. Maybe they thought I would try and influence a particular case, but I don't recall what was going on at the time. Due to my background(which no one here is aware of), it is highly unlikely I would ever be accepted on a jury either for the state/defendant or plaintiff/respondent and while still being called I was rejected every time I made it as far as the courtroom. Now I have a medical disability which more or less bars me from serving. Would have like to though at some point. From you're postings, it seems that it is a very positive experience.

    And since we are on the Zimmerman thing, one time (I thought for sure I made it....till the defense rejected me) the judge asked if any juror might be unable to find a defendant guilty or not guilty based on race (the defendant was black). One of the people in the pool said that he couldn't because a black man killed his father (I think it was a robbery or something). I wonder....if his father was killed by a white man, would he have the same reservations about judging a white man?

    Personally, I believe I could set aside my experiences and judge the defendant guilty or innocent based on what went on in court, even if I did know many of the individuals that the state was going to call. I would have scrutinized the states case with a little more vigor.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 12:49 pm on Fri, Jul 26, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4310

    Mr. Chapman asked the question just to see if I would admit to being an idiot along with all the other jurors - there was NO other purpose to his comment.

    That was what Mr. Adams was pointing out, so his comment is valid.

    As far is the law and the legal system is concerned, most jurors are idiots.

    If they were at all knowledgeable about the law, they wouldn't get picked for a jury - for the exact reason law enforcement, attorneys and a variety of people in other occupations that ARE familiar with the law are automatically disqualified.

    Perspective jurors most often only have to fill out a questionnaire if it is a high profile case. The questionnaires are often mailed to perspective jurors before they even show up at the court house - saves a lot of time by weeding out the obvious rejects.

    I never said that there should be another way to select a jury, but the current selection process is highly unbalanced already. People may NEVER be called for jury duty their entire lives, even though they are registered voters or have a DMV license or ID card. Others get called annually.

    Since Mr. Kinderman has obviously not had to show up for jury duty in the past thirty years, he may want to know that "hundreds" are not called for one trial. Dozens, perhaps, are asked to appear and then sit around and wait to see if a trial will actually happen (most cases are settled by pleas and the potential jurors dismissed). There could be several trials beginning jury selection on the same day, so jurors have to sit around a wait.

    As far as "no-shows" - you don't want to be one of those since a bench warrant will be issued shortly. A friend's husband never even received his jury notice, thus becoming a "no-show," but it wasn't even a week later when a Sheriff came to his door to arrest him.

    HE was put on trial and fined $500 for his trouble.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 11:30 am on Fri, Jul 26, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    [thumbup]

     
  • John Lucas posted at 11:30 am on Fri, Jul 26, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    [thumbup]

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 11:04 am on Fri, Jul 26, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2255

    I wonder though if a jury seated in this manner might be cause for appeal if the defense had lost their case and had objected to such a move by the judge at the onset of trial. Do you recall how this particular case ended, Mr. Adams?

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 11:00 am on Fri, Jul 26, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2255

    Yes, and from licensed drivers. Thank you Mr. Maurer.

     
  • robert maurer posted at 10:27 am on Fri, Jul 26, 2013.

    mason day Posts: 437

    Also from licenced drivers

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 10:14 am on Fri, Jul 26, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2255

    What’s missing from the jury walking in off the streets issue are the following:

    They are chosen from the voting roll; no one is arguing that. But how else are they to be selected for “possible” service on a jury? Having received a notice to appear for jury service does not guarantee a seat in the jury box. If that were the case, then each trial would require only 30 or so notices to be mailed out (enough to fill the box; alternates; and to account for no-shows). But there are often hundreds of potential jury members who receive notices for one trial.

    It is then up to both sides in a trial to choose from that group the very best jury possible. Not only do potential jury members need to fill out what is often a very long and purposely confusing questionnaire, but they are then subjected to voir dire - questioning by both sides regarding not only their answers to the questions provided on paper, but then further queries based on how they appear in court and other factors that the prosecution and defense deem relevant.

    The process is hardly a “walking in off the street” procedure. Of course my question still stands: for those who don’t believe this to be the best way to choose a jury, what would they propose?

     
  • robert maurer posted at 9:58 am on Fri, Jul 26, 2013.

    mason day Posts: 437

    God bless George Zimmerman?? He didn't sneeze for crying out loud. He himself instigated this whole mess. Maybe we should all follow pedestrians that walk through our neighborhoods that we don't personally know, provoke them,(somebody is bound to have a cellphone on)let them bloody us just enough to make the injuries look worse than they are,scream and shout for a few seconds,then miraculously pull out a loaded firearm and kill the guy with one shot? One who would do that ia a chicken.... pansy in my book.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 9:38 am on Fri, Jul 26, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2255

    Mr. Adams offered regarding Mr. Chapman:

    "The weak venom betrays the absolute, ingrained hatred for anyone who might disagree with these two [one of which is Mr. Chapman]. What is sad is they think this is normal.

    "Chapman@11:59 'Tell me, Joanne, when you served on jury duty did you consider yourself an idiot like those who just "walked in off the street"?'"

    Knowing that I had served on a jury and made such a statement regarding juries, that they are nothing more than "idiots," I would have fully expected such a question. After all, the one actually making that statement revealed serving on a jury herself. It follows that if juries are in fact idiots, what did she think she was? Mr. Chapman wasn’t trying to be hateful at all - It is a logical question clearly not rhetorical in nature.

    As for the rest of Mr. Adams' accusations toward Messrs. Chapman and Baxter, I see no hatred there either.

     
  • robert maurer posted at 9:27 am on Fri, Jul 26, 2013.

    mason day Posts: 437

    [thumbup]

     
  • robert maurer posted at 9:22 am on Fri, Jul 26, 2013.

    mason day Posts: 437

    Those weren't just stories, Joanne.One time in 79, 2 black men stole some money from a white teenage girl and when word spread, within minutes a very angry large group of lodi teens were all over Lodi looking for these 2 guys.Fortunately for them, Ben and I found them first,they gave me the money,which I returned to the girl, and they left Lodi without any injuries except a bruised ego. On a few occasions, a mob of blacks have came to my defense in stockton when I needed it and least expected it.In 93, 2 young ladies(one was black)moved in next door to me in order to be within walking distance to work. They helped care for the elderly. They were kind and considerate neighbors, but they only stayed for 6 months because of harrassment and threats from people. I hated to see them leave under those circumstances.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 8:18 am on Fri, Jul 26, 2013.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1798

    Bobbin, YOU received four notices in one year for jury duty? Oh my, I do apologize, you are right after all.

     
  • Doug Chaney posted at 7:27 am on Fri, Jul 26, 2013.

    advocate Posts: 499

    You're always right, flyboy Joe.

     
  • Doug Chaney posted at 7:25 am on Fri, Jul 26, 2013.

    advocate Posts: 499

    The left? If the wacky right had their choice, they'd still be slaves?

     
  • Doug Chaney posted at 7:19 am on Fri, Jul 26, 2013.

    advocate Posts: 499

    Ms. Parigoris, then why do you seem to hate minorities so much? As most teabaggers do?

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 1:06 am on Fri, Jul 26, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4310

    Software Developer, writer.....and now legal expert.

    Please, please stop!!! It's becoming embarrassing, really.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 12:59 am on Fri, Jul 26, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4310

    Mr. Maurer, when I first came to Lodi, a lovely Japanese American lady I worked with, one who had been interned in Arkansas during WWII with her family and, upon returning to Lodi, found that her family's property had been sold illegally in the interim, that they were absolutely destitute due to the actions of the US government and the wonderful people of their "home town", still had the temerity to tell me that "if you saw a black person in Lodi driving a Mercedes, they must have stolen it - let alone what in the world were they DOING within the city limits?"

    I guess you could have nailed a minority (other than a black person) to a cross in Lodi and they would still disparage any black person who dared to enter the city limits, and mind you, that was only in the mid 1970's, not so long ago.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 12:44 am on Fri, Jul 26, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4310

    Baxxter wrote: "Jurors walking in off the street. "Hey Judge, I just strolling down the street and decided to pop into your court so I can be a juror". In what world does that take place? "

    Yeah, in OUR world. Do YOU call jurors selected by DMV records and voter registration rolls anything other than "walking in off the street?"

    You think that random selection for the sole reason that you have a driver's license and/or have registered to vote means you are anything other than John Doe juror?

    The system for producing a jury "summons" is so impersonal and "DUMB" that it cannot (or does not) distinguish between spelling differences.

    I used to receive FOUR different notices a year for jury duty because the "system" picked up four separate aspects of the way my name was spelled in the DMV system.

    Idiots off the street? I stand by my claim absolutely.

    Naive, so naive.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 12:29 am on Fri, Jul 26, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4310

    HAHAHAHAHA....

    If one doesn't know or believe that juries aren't stacked by one or both sides, that so-called jury consultants are paid just for the fun of it....ridiculous.

    Our legal system is a game played by both the prosecution and the defense. To believe otherwise is completely naive and, frankly, stupid.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 12:22 am on Fri, Jul 26, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4310

    So, Mr. Kinderman, who are attesting to the absolute truth that juries are so expert at the law that they enter a courtroom with the knowledge and foresight to be able to come to a completely just verdict.

    Most I've seen in SJ county are so incompetent they can barely find the parking garage and/or the jury assembly room. You are way too generous.

    But no one is saying that the system is broken. It's what we have, it's what our Constitution mandates - "a jury of our peers." Can you say that a murderer is being judged by a jury of HIS or HER peers - technically they would be fellow murderers. Or people as dumb as a murderer.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 10:43 pm on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1798

    Florida knew it didn't have enough evidence to convict Zimmerman but filed charges after the Obama administration pressured them to do so. Never let it be said that Barry doesn't know how to exploit a tragedy for political gain and fan the flames of racial tensions. The IT director in Attorney General of Florida's office was fired for leaking evidence suppressed by the prosecutors. Now the entire prosecutors office is under investigation for unethical and illegal practices. Hopefully, justice will be forthcoming after all.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 10:21 pm on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1798

    Yet another Heapin' Helpin' of liberal dumpster stew.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:12 pm on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    yes

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 8:17 pm on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1271

    And to clarify for Jerome (just clarifying, not attacking you or your points that you have made), I believe in CA, judges can immediately impanel a jury without the normal being called for jury duty protocol. It happens rarely, but did happen several years ago in SJ County when a case could not find enough jurors. The judge ordered a deputy to go round up enough people for a jury. Since you couldn't use people who were charged for a crime or weren't citizens, or all the other disqualifications, what they ended up with was a jury composed mostly of lawyers who happened to be caught outside. Both sides agreed on the jury that was to be seated, the case was presented quickly and effeciently and resolved. Needless to say, lawyers in the SJ courthouse now try and make themselves look busy.

    Anyway, just a clarification...something good to keep in your back pocket should the need ever arise.

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 8:10 pm on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1271

    The weak venom betrays the absolute, ingrained hatred for anyone who might disagree with these two. What is sad is they think this is normal.

    Chapman@11:59 "Tell me, Joanne, when you served on jury duty did you consider yourself an idiot like those who just "walked in off the street"?"

    Chapman @11:27"I wonder how many of the "monday morning quarterbacks" weighing in on the George Zimmerman verdict would be doing so had Obama not gone on TV and turned this whole incident into a political and racial farce? People with absolutely no legal expertise, no knowledge of exactly what happened and relying on the liberal media for their "information" are as gullible as it gets. "

    Baxter @5:56 "Typical liberal mindset. It is EVERYONE elses fault. State of Florida, defense attorney, juror B, bad prosecutor, bad judge, I am surprised they aren't blaming Bush influenced the not guilty verdict."

    Chapman@12:10 "He is a Democrat and voted for Obama, maybe he will become a teacher."

    Please, all of you newly minted citizens, this is the level of discourse you will have if you sign up to be a voter in the republican party.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 8:07 pm on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2255

    Mr. Maurer, juries aren’t expected to fully understand how courtrooms and the law work. In fact, the less they know about the “law,” the better; that way they’re not trying to play “lawyer” based upon what they’ve seen on TV. All they’re expected to do is stay awake, pay attention and listen. As far as seating a decent jury, it’s up to each side of the system to choose the jury to the best of their abilities. During voir dire they’ve got unlimited strikes for cause and usually ten peremptory strikes they can use simply because they don’t like a potential jury member’s face. From the questionnaire that each side should take care in crafting it should reveal much about a person to send them packing for cause and then simply taking reasonable care in who they kick off for no reason at all, they should wind up with a jury able enough to come up with a good verdict.

    Then we get to the prepping of witnesses. In the Zimmerman trial, the prosecution’s “star” was anything but. Rachel Jeantel was terrible. Either she simply thought she was smarter than those who tried to help her through her testimony, or the prosecution thought she wasn’t an idiot. Clearly according to some here she should never be permitted to sit on a jury. I agree. Refer to my first paragraph to figure out how to keep someone like her out of the jury box.

    In short, the prosecution was not prepared to go to trial. It had nothing to do with an idiotic jury - they did the job they were sworn to do. It had EVERYTHING to do with the prosecution not doing their jobs.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 6:10 pm on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    Walt Posts: 993

    Litmus test. You pass!

    Carry on.

    [smile]

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 6:09 pm on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    Walt Posts: 993

    Ed, good for you.

    Thanks for your service!

    [smile]

     
  • Will Rainwater posted at 6:05 pm on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    Will Rainwater Posts: 35

    God Bless George Zimmerman!!!! He should not have even been put on trial!!! The Florida prosecutor who ordered the trial is now INDICTED for withholding evidence and obstruction of justice involved with this case!!!! What is wrong with you libtards!!???

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 6:05 pm on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    Walt Posts: 993


    "Just a whole lot of whining and complaining"

    Oh, the irony!!

    [lol]

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 5:56 pm on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1798

    Typical liberal mindset. It is EVERYONE elses fault. State of Florida, defense attorney, juror B, bad prosecutor, bad judge, I am surprised they aren't blaming Bush influenced the not guilty verdict. The bottom line is that they didn't have enough evidence against Zimmerman to convict. It is called a COURT OF LAW, not a court of emotions.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 5:48 pm on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2255

    What I find somewhat interesting, but so very confusing are all these comments about just how bad our system of jurisprudence is. From the jury making the absolute wrong decision to juries being fielded by nothing but idiots. I wonder how we’ve been able to survive as a nation for so long using such an antiquated and misguided court system.

    But what’s missing are any suggestions on how to improve upon the system. Just a whole lot of whining and complaining.

     
  • Ed Walters posted at 5:44 pm on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    the old dog Posts: 353

    Walter, no I was not in the Air Force, seems I forgot to put the most important part, I served in the United States Marine Corps.

     
  • Ed Walters posted at 5:38 pm on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    the old dog Posts: 353

    Walter: What makes you think I`m retired Air Force? No Walter, I was a grunt in the mud, carrying a light 30 cal. Machine Gun, and very proud of it.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 4:56 pm on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    Walt Posts: 993

    [lol]

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 4:54 pm on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    Walt Posts: 993

    Ed, are you retired Air Force?

    [rolleyes]

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 4:51 pm on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    Walt Posts: 993

    [thumbup]

     
  • robert maurer posted at 3:48 pm on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    mason day Posts: 437

    ...and Martin walked to 711 to cure his "munchies" and "cottonmouth". And what's worse is he paid for them and didn't steal his skittles and tea.

     
  • robert maurer posted at 3:32 pm on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    mason day Posts: 437

    I can think of some,Lodi, for one. but your opinion won't count. See my above post.

     
  • robert maurer posted at 3:27 pm on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    mason day Posts: 437

    From my experiences, the jury is usually oblivious to how the law and courtrooms work despite the fact that non-jury citizens have the right to observe trials and are encouraged by judges to do so.Joanne passed the litmus test,as some others have demonstrated here. Others need to put in some time.

     
  • robert maurer posted at 3:05 pm on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    mason day Posts: 437

    Good observation Joanne. Have you noticed that most, if not all high profile cases are just a farce,and some lower courts try to emulate them? And to be honest, 35 years ago, if Obama or any black person came to lodi,they would be warned to be out of town by sundown. There were dire consequences for them if they weren't .

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 2:59 pm on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1798

    Jurors walking in off the street. "Hey Judge, I just strolling down the street and decided to pop into your court so I can be a juror". In what world does that take place?

     
  • Ed Walters posted at 1:26 pm on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    the old dog Posts: 353

    Mike: Perhaps a people greater at Wally World, or a Ronald McDonald mask, who would know.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 1:25 pm on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4310

    I think you intended vice-versa, Mr. Lucas.

    And we all know that the TEA Partier is certain what drugs Martin was going to swallow that evening. According to the TEA Partier, Zimmerman is practically a hero for preventing another young black man from partaking in illegal drug use.

    Yea!!!

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 1:20 pm on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4310

    I think I was almost "forced" to watch much of the trial, since it was being broadcast live during the time I usually see other news programs - while getting ready for work.

    Knowing just a minuscule amount about trial procedure (from what I was told to observe and documented for a class) I was shocked that the defense mostly led the witnesses in their testimony - setting up a scenario and then asking a yes or no question and then cutting off the witness if they deviated from the script, while the prosecutor and judge sat mute, never objecting, I think the whole trial was a farce - a little dance that was required to comply with the public outcry - but as with all things in Florida - justifiably the FREAKIEST state in the country (aside from Texas), all this was allowed, even the "chummy" attitude that juror B-whatever had toward Zimmerman in the interview that followed.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 1:10 pm on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4310

    Actually, yes. The first time I served on jury duty. After observing about 10 different trials for a law class I took, then no. Since you wanted to know.

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 12:10 pm on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    He is a Democrat and voted for Obama, maybe he will become a teacher.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 12:00 pm on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    I know in your world a person walking down the street minding his own business, not bothering anybody but happens to be black is a person worthy of being stalked, accosted by any gun nut wannabe cop and then is killed is ok. Some of us have other ideas about the situation.

     
  • Ed Walters posted at 11:44 am on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    the old dog Posts: 353

    Joanne: On your third paragraph made me wonder if you were not describing yourself. BTW Joanne, the LNS would never print what I meant as a "butt' whopp`en. At your age if you don`t know by now, you will never know, but Kim`s post gave you a stand-up idea, literally. OK, I was wrong, make that 30 lbs. I know that Model "T" you had did not have door locks, the only thing you had to worry about was termites.

    I have served 3 times on jury duty, DUI, malpractice and rape. Granted it was not easy getting 12 people to agree, but on the rape trial, which I was jury foremen I finally convinced them to see it my way and found him guilty. People are like sheep, they need a good dog to keep things in prospective.

    Concerning two hookers killing two drugs dealers, looks like a win-win situation to me, drugs dealers off the street and the hookers in prison.

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 11:39 am on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    Sorry, Mr. Kinderman, but citizens just walking in off the street and being placed on a jury are "idiots."
    Jurors "walking in off the street"? Since when did jurors just "walk in off the street"? They are summoned and then approved by BOTH the defense and prosecution. Tell me, Joanne, when you served on jury duty did you consider yourself an idiot like those who just "walked in off the street"?

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 11:27 am on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    I wonder how many of the "monday morning quarterbacks" weighing in on the George Zimmerman verdict would be doing so had Obama not gone on TV and turned this whole incident into a political and racial farce? People with absolutely no legal expertise, no knowledge of exactly what happened and relying on the liberal media for their "information" are as gullible as it gets.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 10:58 am on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2255

    Prior convictions are not permitted as evidence in a criminal trial unless of course they might show a pattern of misconduct closely bearing on the current charges. Clearly the defense was aware of Zimmerman's past, but were not permitted by law to introduce any of it during the actual trial. Once again, during the 1980’s trial where I was a member of the jury, we heard things that made us believe that in all likelihood the defendant had been in serious trouble before, but we were prohibited to even consider it; and we succeeded in keeping such beliefs out of our deliberations. Had Zimmerman been convicted, then his past record most likely would have been admissible for sentencing purposes.

    Now as far as those bemoaning the idea that it was actually Trayvon Martin on trial, the defense had every right and responsibility to base its defense upon Martin’s actions that night. Had this not been a murder trial (if Martin had not died, but had only been badly injured), his testimony would have been admissible against Zimmerman and thus the outcome may have been greatly altered depending upon Martin’s believability as a witness. Of course we’ll never know.

    But because Martin did not survive the melee, it was exceedingly difficult for the prosecution to prove its case with the witnesses and other proof it had at its disposal. If this moves to a wrongful death civil case, the burden of proof will shift significantly. For those who believe Zimmerman guilty, that forum will be where their justice might be exacted.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:30 am on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Yes you would have thought Zimmerman was the accused instead of Travon but from most of the posts here it is obvious that the kid is on trial.

     
  • robert maurer posted at 10:03 am on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    mason day Posts: 437

    Surprisingly nobody has brought this up: Zimmerman has had several brushes with the law. First, a domestic violence arrest,which his parents and their supporters urged. Then, resisting arrest without violence. Then, resisting arrest with violence. Records sealed. His father Robert, is a retired Orange County magistrate judge. Think that may have had something to do with the court proceedings and the outcome? Remotely possible, in my opinion.On the other hand, Martin had no arrest record, only suspension from school for marijuana possession. There is a lot of info online if you keyword their names and arrest records,from US News, NBC News,NY Times, along with several others.

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 6:57 am on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1271

    If George Zimmerman had stayed in his auto that night, his life wouldn't been ruined.

    Although I think he was correct in the fatal shooting, he could have avoided the whole thing by just watching and reporting. Neighborhood watch programs don't condone or urge members to confront potential criminals.

    I suppose Zimmerman's life might improve from this point forward, but I doubt it. Who want's to hire George Zimmerman? And it doesn't matter that he was found not guilty. The chances that someone buying goods from Target would look up and see Zimmerman offering to sign you up for a Target card and getting one are remote.
    Nobody wants George Zimmerman.

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 6:51 am on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1271

    Wikipedia? Really?

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 5:52 am on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4310

    "Trashing the American system of jury trials?"

    FYI - a whole bunch of countries have the same type of system. So implying that I'm anti-American or whatever you intended is just plain ridiculous, Mr. Chapman.

    Get out once in a while and educate yourself.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 5:49 am on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4310

    Ms. Parigoris wrote: "You really need to get out more and quit attacking people that you know absolutely NOTHING about.:

    Quit attacking people you know nothing about? LIKE THIS, Ms. Parigoris? Dateline, April 4, 2013:

    ""You are an angry, hateful person who just likes to lash out at anyone who differs from your outlook on the world. You make personal attacks on people with absolutely no factual basis."

    Ed wrote: "Joanne: Feel about 50 lbs. lighter? You should after that butt whopp`en you just got. Seems Kim forgot more than you will ever know about the Tea Party."

    Really, Ed? "butt whopp'en?" Whatever that is. The ramblings of Ms. Parigoris don't qualify as what YOU would call a "butt whopp'en," if I get your misspelled drift here.

    Another person who loves to bring up Margaret Sanger as if she is the poster child for the current policies of Planned Parenthood. And you can drag out any number of African Americans who believe differently about race, just as whites have different views, Asians, Hispanics, whatever. They are simply that - different views.

    It still doesn't make anyone knowledgeable and worldly.

    And wow! Shared a playpen with a black boy....racial tolerance personified!!

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 5:29 am on Thu, Jul 25, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4310

    Late to the Party again. We've rehashed the "Democrats were racists" back in the day thing over and over.

    We all know that the Southern Democrats jumped ship for the racist and conservative Republican party and roles were reversed.

    And the ABOVE, courtesy of the NON-PARTISAN TEA Party!

     
  • Ed Walters posted at 6:30 pm on Wed, Jul 24, 2013.

    the old dog Posts: 353


    Joanne: Feel about 50 lbs. lighter? You should after that butt whopp`en you just got. Seems Kim forgot more than you will ever know about the Tea Party. Though I have never volunteered at a homeless shelter for black, battered woman, makes me ask the question, do I have to take off my shoes to count the times you have. If what Kim says is correct concerning what she has posted, enjoy your shoe, a little salt and pepper along with hot sauce might make it go down better, or you can substitute crow for your shoe.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 5:50 pm on Wed, Jul 24, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Of course, Mr Zimmerman knew this when he stalked and killed him. Give me a break. If you are walking down the street not bothering anyone no one should have the right to do what Mr Zimmerman did.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 5:47 pm on Wed, Jul 24, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Actually the opposite is true.

     
  • Robert Chapman posted at 5:13 pm on Wed, Jul 24, 2013.

    Bob Chapman Posts: 997

    Leave it to a liberal to trash talk the American system of jury trials because of a decision she doesn't agree with. I wonder if she questioned the jury system when OJ was acquitted? Liberals are known for letting emotions, not facts, rule their lives and beliefs.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 4:37 pm on Wed, Jul 24, 2013.

    Walt Posts: 993

    "the only jury I ever served on in the 1980’s"

    Wow...

    It appears to me...

    That someone is shirking his civic responsibilities??

    I get called in every two years. Like clockwork.

    A couple of trials and more jury pools then I can count.

    I wonder why Jerry is invisible to the court clerks??


    [beam]

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 3:16 pm on Wed, Jul 24, 2013.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1342

    Kim you do know that Strom Thurmond opposed the Democratic push for A Civil Rights Act, as a democrat and then switched parties when it passed he then spent the rest of his career as the most racist congressman in history within the republican party. When you cut and past without checking facts it can get you in trouble.

     
  • Kim Parigoris posted at 2:48 pm on Wed, Jul 24, 2013.

    Kim Parigoris Posts: 469

    I shared my playpen with a black boy. My mother, my 3 siblings and me visited a black friend in the heart of a black Washington DC ghetto during the late 60's when tensions were high. I minored in Race Relations in college. So don't preach to me about tolerance and diversity and just blurt out inaccuracies and accusation of things you know NOTHING about. I have an elderly black friend locally that I have given money to twice,for him to go back home to the deep south to attend his son's funeral, and then again his sister's. So put a sock in things you know nothing about.

     
  • Kim Parigoris posted at 2:37 pm on Wed, Jul 24, 2013.

    Kim Parigoris Posts: 469

    You really need to get out more and quit attacking people that you know absolutely NOTHING about. You know NOTHING about the Tea Party except what you see on MSNBC. NOTHING! Educate yourself instead of being a mouthpiece for someone else. And you know NOTHING about me and my history. Start listening to people like Kevin Jackson, CL Bryant, Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, K Carl Smith, Anita Montcrief, Starr Parker.. These are black people that are on to the agenda of the left and they don't like it. The left are the ones who have kept blacks on the plantation. Giving them welfare as long as there is no male in the house, more black babies aborted in NYC than are born alive. A 70+ % father absentee rate in the family compared to 20 % pre Civil Rights..The left has done nothing but destroy the black race, and made them wards of the state- and they are waking up to that fact now. Here are some nice words of the founder of Planned Parenthood.."On blacks, immigrants and indigents: "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people. So don't give me your rhetoric founded on absolutely NO facts.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 2:24 pm on Wed, Jul 24, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4310

    Sorry, Mr. Kinderman, but citizens just walking in off the street and being placed on a jury are "idiots." They have no concept of the law. They have no experience determining what is just and what is not. They receive minimal instruction from the judge as to the parameters they must use to make a decision. They are biased by their experiences, no matter how much they may deny it.

    The only thing these 12 people comply with (and in most cases NOT) is that they are a "jury of (the defendant's) peers," as mandated by the Constitution.

    To say that they are not "winging it" would be a lie. Maybe you believed you were exercising excellent judgment given your limited knowledge of the legal system at the time, but chances are you and your fellow jurors did not.

    All guesswork.

    And judging by the one Zimmerman juror who has come forward for interviews, it is easy to discern that she had a tremendous affinity toward Zimmerman - referring to him always as "George" and not "Mr. Zimmerman" or "the defendant," as if she was his long lost girlfriend.

    Groupies are not easily weeded out in notorious cases like this one. How do we know that this woman and others didn't have a "thing" for Zimmerman?

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 2:03 pm on Wed, Jul 24, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4310

    FYI - Real racists don't recognize REAL RACISM when they see it - they embody it. They scoff and try to chalk it up to some other motive.

    Wonder when the last time TEA Partiers volunteered at a homeless shelter in Stockton for abused black women. WHAT!! Never?. Impossible!

    Social welfare organization doesn't know the meaning of "social welfare."

     
  • Kim Parigoris posted at 1:58 pm on Wed, Jul 24, 2013.

    Kim Parigoris Posts: 469

    Since you brought up the Civil Rights act, maybe you should find out the truth and watch C.L. Bryant's move The Runaway Slave (a black, by the way) Maybe you should get your facts straight about it. For one thing the first Civil Rights Act was presented by Dwight D Eisenhower in 1957. Check out the stats and see how the votes went down..Lots more Dems opposed than supported! Democratic ""Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, an ardent segregationist, sustained the longest one-person filibuster in history in an attempt to keep the bill from becoming law. His one-man filibuster lasted 24 hours and 18 minutes; he began with readings of every state's election laws in alphabetical order. Thurmond later read from the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and George Washington's Farewell Address. His speech set the record for a Senate filibuster.[2] The bill passed the House with a vote of 285 to 126 (Republicans 167-19 for, Democrats 118-107 for) [3] and the Senate 72 to 18 (Republicans 43-0 for, Democrats 29-18 for).[4] President Eisenhower signed it on September 9, 1957.""
    The Civil Rights Act of 1964- only passed due to Republican support. John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were both senators opposed to the 1957 one but once they saw that blacks were gaining power they pulled a switcheroo as a political ploy in later years. "When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.[10] Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[11]

    The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress."[12]

    After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Everett Dirksen (R-IL), Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), and Mike Mansfield (D-MT) introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican swing votes to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation.[13]

    On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed a filibustering address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation. Until then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 57 working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, the bill's manager, concluded he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate and end the filibuster. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.[14]
    Again the Republicans had a much higher percentage of Aye votes than the Dems- Read your real history- not the one Chris Mathews teaches you. By party[edit]

    The original House version:[16]
    Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
    Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

    Cloture in the Senate:[17]
    Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
    Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

    The Senate version:[16]
    Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
    Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

    The Senate version, voted on by the House:[16]
    Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
    Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 1:51 pm on Wed, Jul 24, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4310

    Experience speaks!

     
  • Kim Parigoris posted at 1:42 pm on Wed, Jul 24, 2013.

    Kim Parigoris Posts: 469

    Zimmerman took a black girl to the prom, he reported to the police and followed up on a beating of a black homeless man by some white thugs, he had a black business partner for an insurance company had, he mentored black youth. Yep, sounds like a real racist to me.

     
  • Kim Parigoris posted at 1:27 pm on Wed, Jul 24, 2013.

    Kim Parigoris Posts: 469

    Martin had various tweets about getting his hands on codeine..Quit glorifying this thug. Kicked out of his house 3 times by his mother..Purple Lean, or Lean, is an intoxicating beverage also known by the names lean, sizzurp, and liquid codeine. It is commonly abused by southern rappers and wannabe suburban teenagers. It is a mixture of Promethazine/Codeine cough syrup and sprite, or other beverage [such as Arizona Watermelon] with a few jolly ranchers and/or skittles thrown in

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 1:25 pm on Wed, Jul 24, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2255

    Yes, interesting things about American trials. In addition to listening and watching while on a jury, jurists are permitted to actually ask for clarification. In fact, the only jury I ever served on in the 1980’s had a judge in charge who permitted us to ask questions while the trial was ongoing. We merely jotted our question or concern on a piece of paper and during a break would hand it over to the Clerk. He in turn would give it to the judge for his decision as to whether our question or concern was proper. Only one question was asked in this manner having to do with fingerprint evidence. There’s no doubt that the answer we received from the ADA helped us to reach a just verdict. Perhaps the only difference here is that I never thought the jury I served on consisted of twelve idiots - just twelve citizens who simply wanted to do the right thing according to the law, the evidence and the instructions given to us by the Court - which we did.

    Clearly, had the Zimmerman jury reached anything but a “not guilty” decision they wouldn’t be considered idiotic as perhaps at least one or two here must believe. I consider their question to the judge during deliberation regarding manslaughter must have also assisted them in reaching the proper decision as well.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 1:21 pm on Wed, Jul 24, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    What part of if you are walking down the street not committing a crime, minding you own business that you should not be messed with by a vigilante gun nut? Travon's past is irrelevant. He was doing nothing suspicious. Calling the cops on him is one thing, they are properly trained but Zimmerman needed to go to jail once the police said they would handle it. He stepped over the line.

     
  • robert maurer posted at 1:17 pm on Wed, Jul 24, 2013.

    mason day Posts: 437

    Those who think the jury got it wrong has never sat on a jury. Really? One needs to sit on a jury to see how screwed up the court system is?According to news reports, it was the strategies of both attorneys that freed Zimmerman.According to a couple lawyers, a self defense strategy was used instead of the "stand your ground" defense because Zimmerman created the whole scenario that led to the a..whooping he deserved, and Martin's death. Personally, I've lost count of how many times I got a jury summons in the mail and had to appear.Not only that,I've been a plaintiff,defendent,and a witness for both sides at different times. Want to know how messed up the court system is?I once got a jury summons and had to contact the court and explain that I was the main witness in an attempted murder case, in which I gave chase to the perpetraitor's vehicle to get the licence number and description of assailants to police who were on their way to the scene of the crime,since my neighbor called them.One of the perps pled guilty before the trial and my appearance was not necessary.Before the trial, one of the perps tried to talk me out of testifying,claiming that he wasn't there and didn't do it.If he didn't do it, he would not have known how to find me.Another time,a defense lawyer confused my name with the defendent's. I corrected him,and told him it's ok to check his notes since it's an open book test today,which brought smiles to the court.What a joke and that's the best we can do?

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 11:41 am on Wed, Jul 24, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2255

    By "did it," I am referring to whether Zimmerman actually committed a crime, i.e., murder, manslaughter, etc. Of course I know that he used his gun to end the life of Trayvon Martin. I apologize for any confusion this obviously has caused.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 11:39 am on Wed, Jul 24, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4310

    Because Obama is hell bent on "fundamentally transforming" America - still have no explanation how he has or will do that.

    Fundamental transformations of the past?

    The American Revolution.
    The Civil War.
    The Transcontinental Railroad.
    The Industrial Revolution.
    The Civil Rights Act.

    Obama? Just a poor black guy who got elected to the presidency.

    Nothing "fundamental" or "transformational" about it.

     
  • Ed Walters posted at 11:39 am on Wed, Jul 24, 2013.

    the old dog Posts: 353

    As Mr. Kinderman stated, Obama brought up the issue when he said, at one time he might have been Martin, so that leaves him fair game. The press portrays Martin as a smiling 12 year boy. Now fast forward 5 years, the same boy, now the size of a man who has been asked to leave high school three different times, was know to smoke weed, also that "grill" a full lower front teeth of gold was not what he appeared to be. Can`t blame George for defending himself as his head was being smashed into the ground. Was the weapon George was carrying in or out of the holster when Martin hit him. Evidence shows "from what the papers and TV show" a broken nose and blood coming from the back of Georges head. All I know is what I read in the papers, for that matter I don`t believe what I read. A very good defense with no offence. With what was presented, the jury had little choice but to set George free. Now look at the black on black murders in Chicago on a daily basis, never make the news as just another day in Chicago, clean up the mess, move on and get ready for the next murder, seems its a way of life in Chi town.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 11:36 am on Wed, Jul 24, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4310

    "Ever been on a jury?" Ever been on a jury in a murder trial?

    I have. Two black prostitutes accused of 1st degree murder in the killings of two elderly black drug dealers in Stockton. They didn't bash the two old guys heads in. The prosecutor stated in court that another person had already been convicted of killing them. Their part in the crime? Unlocking and opening the door of the house and letting the killer in. They left before the murders occurred taking cash and drugs.

    The jury had 3 choices - 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, and accessory to murder. Choice number 3 was the correct one, but many on the jury didn't understand why that was the correct verdict until the judge clarified the jury instructions. The prosecutor was going for the maximum, hoping the majority of idiots on the jury wouldn't be able to figure it out.

    Fortunately, we did. The two women didn't skate by any means, but they got a just verdict.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 11:02 am on Wed, Jul 24, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4310

    Mr. Kinderman wrote: "Still, there will be those who will believe that it will be proved that he actually did it and perhaps that will assuage them."

    "proved that he actually DID it?"

    He did it. He admitted that he shot the kid. His gun was used in the crime. What about this don't you understand, Mr. Kinderman? What news have you been watching that "suggested" that HE DIDN'T DO IT?

    The problem with this is the "stand your ground" law that permitted him to commit cold blooded murder with NO CONSEQUENCES!

    Yes, he should have been convicted of manslaughter, but the SYG law prevented that - no mitigating circumstances because Zimmerman was supposedly defending himself from "Martin's attack," never mind that self-defense wouldn't be an issue if Zimmerman hadn't provoked the entire situation by not following the 911 operator's instructions.

    Zimmerman is a murderer. No if, ands, or buts about it - the Florida law is what brought this travesty of justice to its conclusion of "not guilty."

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 10:48 am on Wed, Jul 24, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2255

    It’s not a question of how I would feel if it were my kid; I of course would feel horrible. But as a father, I would never serve on a jury of someone who may have harmed my child. Juries are seated to determine the guilt/innocence of people based upon the law AND the evidence presented – nothing more – especially not “feelings.”

    Just like the jury I sat on in the 1980’s, the prosecution here failed to present enough evidence to get a conviction based upon a reasonable doubt. Just what is it about this concept that is so hard to understand? I believe the Zimmerman jury really wanted to find a way to convict him - they really did. But they couldn’t. There was either a rush to get this to trial whereby too many opportunities to present that evidence were lost or the prosecutor in charge simply didn’t do a good enough job (or a combination of both). In the end, Zimmerman had to be found not guilty.

    Now unless there is a reason to overturn this verdict based upon misconduct of the officers of the court – VERY DOUBTFUL – the criminal case is over. If it’s decided to file a civil case against Zimmerman for wrongful death where the threshold of doubt is easier to prove, perhaps then people will believe justice might be well served. But this is our system of justice in the United States. It isn’t about second-guessing a jury’s decision and whining about it hoping against all hope that maybe magically they’ll all come back and ask for a re-do. They had their shot and I believe they came up with the only decision they could - based upon the law.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 10:18 am on Wed, Jul 24, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2255

    We don’t bring the president up - he inserts himself into issues where he has no business being. So once he does this he becomes fair game for criticism. Blame us if you wish, but this president has no concept of what it means to be “presidential.”

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:14 am on Wed, Jul 24, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    What part of a 17 year old kid coming back from the store minding his own business , being stalked, profiled and killed do you not understand? Get a grip. How would you feel if it was your kid? At a minimum it was manslaughter.

     
  • Michael Hartung posted at 9:51 am on Wed, Jul 24, 2013.

    mhartung Posts: 24

    Why do you all have to bring the president up on everything? If your tomatoes are not turning red this summer...do you blame the black guy? And leave the First Lady alone....oh I forgot she is a socialist!

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 9:12 am on Wed, Jul 24, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2255

    It’s obvious that those who believe the jurors were wrong have never served on a jury. Were they pressured by what was going on outside the courtroom? That’s doubtful. In fact, I believe they took their responsibilities quite seriously. Having served on a jury in the 1980’s of a man who allegedly broke into someone’s home and stole a bunch of things, all twelve of us believe he “probably” did it. But “probably” isn’t near enough to convict anyone of anything. We had to acquit.

    This “reasonable doubt” threshold is upon which all criminal trials pivot. If just one piece of evidence produced provides this high level of doubt, the accused MUST be found not guilty. That’s the law; and that is how a jury is instructed. There were other things we “knew” to be true about the man we were sitting in judgment over that if they could have been entered as evidence perhaps we could have been swayed. But again, unless they’re not properly and legally put before a jury to consider, they’re worthless - just as are the closing arguments by the prosecution and defense. As eloquent (or not) they might be as they wrap up their cases, juries are admonished to consider ONLY the evidence presented.

    So, was Zimmerman guilty? Under the law he is not. And there’s nothing available to anyone to change that fact. Of course there might be a wrongful death case filed against the man; but all they’ll get from that is money. And that might work because the standard of evidence changes considerably. In a civil trial the outcome will be based upon a preponderance of the evidence - kind of like a 51/49 thing. Much easier to rule against Zimmerman there. But he won’t go to prison. But I doubt the guy has much money or other things that could be sold to make much of a difference. Still, there will be those who will believe that it will be proved that he actually did it and perhaps that will assuage them. It is my opinion that such a trial should be prohibited if anyone is already found guilty in a criminal proceeding. But that’s not the law now, so I’m sure one will be forthcoming for Zimmerman. And we’ll have Jackson, Sharpton, and the rest of the guys out there en masse to fuel the fires of racial discontent once more – along with the President of the United States. And won’t that be just fine. (Ugh!)

     
  • robert maurer posted at 8:41 am on Wed, Jul 24, 2013.

    mason day Posts: 437

    Wait! It's not over yet! The Martin family can file a wrongful death civil lawsuit against Zimmerman,as they should.Zimmerman has not had his gun returned to him.Maybe he will be disqualified from buying another handgun.If Zimmerman wasn't pejudiced against blacks,as defense claimed,he should be very paranoid of them for a very long time.He is well known in black communities all across the US. Who knows what his future has in store for him. It might go something like this: unarmed Zimmerman+angry black mob=justice.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 8:07 am on Wed, Jul 24, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4310

    Revealing..."Martin and Zimmerman trial."

    Who was actually on trial here? Martin or Zimmerman?....of course Martin as it turns out.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 7:13 am on Wed, Jul 24, 2013.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1342

    I doubt George would have left his car without a loaded weapon.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 4:34 am on Wed, Jul 24, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2726

    Mr Vail writes:

    I do think the death of a young man was a tragedy, but under the prevailing guidelines the decision was correct.

    This outcome of the jury ranks right up there with the OJ Simpson debacle. We let an obvious wife murderer go free and now we let a wannabe cop cowboy with a gun racially profile a kid going to the store to buy candy then stalk the kid and when the kid defends himself has the right to shoot him down. Anyone who thinks if it was a white kid going down the street with a hoodie this would have happened is only fooling himself. I think manslaughter would have been the right decision. When the cops advised Mr Zimmerman to stand down he crossed the line when he did not.

     

Recent Comments

Posted 21 hours ago by Kevin Paglia.

article: Lodi water supply to be cut as East Bay…

As dry as this year has been I am amazed at how many homes I drive by still watering their lawn for very long times. One house in my neigh…

More...

Posted 2 days ago by Andrew Liebich.

article: Letter: Pastor Frank Nolton forgets abo…

Mr. Barrow said, "I thought you weren't caught up in the left right paradigm." My response was, "I'm not but you would rath…

More...

Posted 2 days ago by Joe Baxter.

article: Letter: Pastor Frank Nolton forgets abo…

So, now there is a "double standard", one for public figures and one for the average citizen? More liberal hogwash.

More...

Posted 2 days ago by nth degree wise.

article: Letter: Pastor Frank Nolton forgets abo…

Oh Joe you're such a kidder. Someone might easily conclude you were mean spirited by your comment.

More...

Posted 2 days ago by Charles Nelson.

article: Letter: A grandson’s birthday wishes fo…

Happy birthday Don. Jeff, your grandfather is an amazing human being, and an exemplary member of our community. What a blessing it is for a…

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Should graduations return to the Grape Bowl?

Lodi Unified leaders are moving Lodi and Tokay high school graduations from the Grape Bowl to the Spanos Center at UOP in Stockton. They cite limited seating, costs and unpredictable weather at the Grape Bowl. But others say graduations at the Grape Bowl are an important Lodi tradition, and one reason many supported renovating the stadium. What do you think?

Total Votes: 187

Loading…

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists