The trial of George Zimmerman

[Firefighterchen]

I have a different take on this situation. Was Travon tired of being stalked and just standing his ground? I am surprised this has not been posited, at least publicly. Another thing - Zimmerman was not a member of a recognized and trained Neighborhood Watch team. His actions, not honoring being told to stand down, show his total lack of training of any kind, let alone showing common sense. Botttom line, there should not have been a loss of life that night.

Stand your ground laws aren't about being watched. Stand your ground came into affect after the physical altercation took place. So no, Martin could not "stand his ground" just for being followed.

Zimmerman did honor the request to stop following.

When Posting the transcript, Posting it all lets us see that Mr. Zimmerman stopped following Mr. Martin.

Dispatcher: Sanford Police Department. ...
Zimmerman: Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a
real suspicious guy, uh, [near] Retreat View Circle, um, the best address I can
give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good, or
he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking
about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy is he white, black, or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing?
Zimmerman: Yeah. A dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie, and either jeans or
sweatpants and white tennis shoes. He's [unintelligible], he was just staring...
Dispatcher: OK, he's just walking around the area...
Zimmerman: ...looking at all the houses.
Dispatcher: OK...
Zimmerman: Now he's just staring at me.
Dispatcher: OK—you said it's 1111 Retreat View? Or 111?
Zimmerman: That's the clubhouse...
Dispatcher: That's the clubhouse, do you know what the—he's near the
clubhouse right now?
Zimmerman: Yeah, now he's coming towards me.
Dispatcher: OK.
Zimmerman: He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male.
Z
Dispatcher: How old would you say he looks?
Zimmerman: He's got button on his shirt, late teens.
Dispatcher: Late teens ok.
Zimmerman: Somethings wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out, he's got
something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is.
Dispatcher: Just let me know if he does anything ok
Zimmerman: How long until you get an officer over here?
Dispatcher: Yeah we've got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does
anything else.
Zimmerman: Okay. These assholes they always get away. When you come to the
clubhouse you come straight in and make a left. Actually you would go past the
clubhouse.
Dispatcher: So it's on the lefthand side from the clubhouse?
Zimmerman: No you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left...uh
you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. **** he's running.
Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entrance...******* [unintelligible]
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok
Dispatcher: Alright sir what is your name?
Zimmerman: George...He ran.
Dispatcher: Alright George what's your last name?
Zimmerman: Zimmerman
Dispatcher: And George what's the phone number you're calling from?
Zimmerman: [redacted by
Mother Jones
]
Dispatcher: Alright George we do have them on the way, do you want to meet with the
officer when they get out there?
Zimmerman: Alright, where you going to meet with them at?
Zimmerman: If they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the
club house, and uh, straight past the club house and make a left, and then they
go past the mailboxes, that’s my truck...[unintelligible]
Dispatcher: What address are you parked in front of?
Zimmerman: I don’t know, it’s a cut through so I don’t know the address.
Dispatcher: Okay do you live in the area?
Zimmerman: Yeah, I...[unintelligible]
Dispatcher: What’s your apartment number?
Zimmerman: It’s a home it’s 1950, oh crap I don’t want to give it all out, I don’t
know where this kid is.
Dispatcher: Okay do you want to just meet with them right near the mailboxes
then?
Zimmerman: Yeah that’s fine.
Dispatcher: Alright George, I’ll let them know to meet you around there okay?
Zimmerman: Actually could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at?
Dispatcher: Okay, yeah that’s no problem.
Zimmerman: Should I give you my number or you got it?
Dispatcher: Yeah I got it [redacted by
Mother Jones
]
Zimmerman: Yeah you got it.
Dispatcher: Okay no problem, I’ll let them know to call you when you’re in the
area.
Zimmerman: Thanks.
Dispatcher: You’re welcome.

Bolded the part where he did honor the operator.

That's why those arguments aren't around long. Easily refuted.

 

[Kramer1113]

Pure speculation on my part, But. I feel as though after Mr. Martin believed he had evaded Mr. Zimmerman he was either looking for an opportunity to break in someones home, or looking for items of value he could easily take from a porch or yard.
Once Mr. Martin saw Mr. Zimmerman walking down the sidewalk back to his vehicle I have a feeling Mr. Martin thought Mr. Zimmerman had spotted him in the act of "trespassing" and wanted to confront him.
This is my opinion and speculation only. *Subject to change :smile:

 

[BC1]

Announced this evening - judge DISALLOWS audio recordings from the incident for both sides since experts cannot agree on who is doing the screaming.

If I remember correctly, there is a witness that saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, pounding Zimmerman's head into the pavement. This witness was a homeowner in the enclave.

There was a long hearing on whether to allow experts to testify who was screaming on the 911 recording. I think it was Zimmerman. If the witness saw Martin pounding him and using his head as a basketball, then why would Martin be the one screaming for help? The photo of the GS wound shows stippling in very tight formation. The shot was made very close.

 

[BC1]

If you read the statute, you'll find whomever the initial aggressor was, is irrelevant. The initial aggressor regains his right to lethal self-defense after expressing his desire to disengage (i.e. yelling 'help' for 40 seconds), and if he fears great bodily injury.

Similar to NY. Once the attack commences there is no duty to retreat. But if he disengages you must let him go unless it poses a grave threat to another. So Martin was required to let GZ disengage and leave.

 

[nogods]

I don't think it is going well for the prosecution. Despite the prosecutions jump start with opening statements, the non-LEO witnesses have been inconsistent. The "left to right" claim made by the first woman was shown by the defense to be highly suspicious as to its credibility. The second woman said she heard three "pops" and then admitted she was so upset that some of what she said to the 911 operator was just babbling. The third woman seemed to be making assumptions about what she saw based on her believe that Martin was the smaller of the two, a belief she formed after seeing a drawing of Martin.

The defense won't have to call those witnesses liars. It will just point out the mistakes of the witnesses and say their mistakes are reasonable under the circumstances, but they are nevertheless mistakes that prevent the government from proving its case with those particular witnesses. What someone thinks they saw is not reliable enough to convict a person.

 

[gunnerbob]

Isn't it amazingly sad that even though people are murdered every day in places like Detroit, nobody gives a sh!t unless it's one race killing a different one? If this was two black guys who scuffled and one got killed (daily in Detroit) you'd never hear a word about it. This case is about race... plain and simple. Racist people make me sick, grow up!

 

[nogods]

It got worst for the prosecution when Martin's phone friend took the stand. She mumbled so much on direct the jury had to strain to understand her.

But on cross, without any egging on, she exhibited an attitude that is certain to cause the jury to disregard her testimony.

At one point she said she was not coming back to testify the next day. I could hear 6 people thinking "We don't want to come back tomorrow either you little brat, but we have to!"

At that point the prosecution stood up and tried to stop the bleeding by saying it would like to continue (thinking, I'm sure, "lets get this disaster off the stand as soon as possible.") The judge terminated the trail for the day.

Six ordinary citizens have gone home tonight dreading tomorrow morning.

It's going to be a long trial and the tide can change, but if the prosecution doesn't win back the jury soon it'll be over before the prosecution's case is over.

 

[mappow]

My 2 cents...........All the cowboys that CC/OC to protect & defend other than themselves should disarm and go home. NOT hammering on cowboys, most know what I'm talking about. You wanna play Dirty Harry or any other Billy Bad A$$ ya better see what's going on in central Fla.
IMHO, was the shoot justified? YES Did the events that led up to the shooting was within the confines of FLA Law? NO. He engaged as a Community WATCH volunteer. Did he watch and report or watch and engage? YOU cannot escalate if you CC ONLY protect yourself if you're in fear of your life NOT due to your actions.
Will this be a travesty of justice, YES. Will justice be served NO. Is Zimmerman liable YES. Again, IMHO. YOU CANNOT BE PART OF THE PROBLEM AND ENGAGE. You have to be an innocent and protect yourself. THAT'S what most State Laws say.

 

[nogods]

My 2 cents...........All the cowboys that CC/OC to protect & defend other than themselves should disarm and go home. NOT hammering on cowboys, most know what I'm talking about. You wanna play Dirty Harry or any other Billy Bad A$$ ya better see what's going on in central Fla.
IMHO, was the shoot justified? YES Did the events that led up to the shooting was within the confines of FLA Law? NO. He engaged as a Community WATCH volunteer. Did he watch and report or watch and engage? YOU cannot escalate if you CC ONLY protect yourself if you're in fear of your life NOT due to your actions.
Will this be a travesty of justice, YES. Will justice be served NO. Is Zimmerman liable YES. Again, IMHO. YOU CANNOT BE PART OF THE PROBLEM AND ENGAGE. You have to be an innocent and protect yourself. THAT'S what most State Laws say.

I agree. I'm just giving my take on the trail as a trail lawyer.

 

[BluesStringer]

I don't know how many of you had the opportunity to watch/listen to the "girl" (she's 19, and was 18 at the time of the shooting) who Martin was on the phone with when it all started, but if I'm a juror, that young umm...."lady," just won the case for Zimmerman. She answered in direct examination from the prosecution that she could identify the voice screaming from a distance on the neighbor's 911 call as that of Martin's, but the end of the day question from the defense was in relation to her deposition with them during which she said something to the effect of, "It could be Trayvon, or it could not be. I don't know."

She also exposed Martin as a flaming racist when she told one of the attorneys (I think it was during direct) that Trayvon answered her question to him about who was following him by saying, "Some creepy-ass cracker."

She lied about her age early-on so as to purposely try to prevent the media from being able to publish images of her or use her real name.

I've been a court-watcher since Court-TV first came into existence (like late 70's/early 80's maybe?), and I don't think I've ever before seen a worse witness for the prosecution who had direct knowledge of events leading up to a killing. She came across as cold, almost uncaring, dishonest, angry over even having to be there, and just downright stupid. What little intelligence she showed herself to possess was employed to come up with a lie about her age to get out of being in the media, and another lie to Mom about why she didn't go to Martin's wake because, she said dishonestly, she had to go to the hospital. She was belligerent and smart-alec in her answers to both sides, but more-so to the defense side.

The defense said they probably had a couple more hours to spend with her tomorrow. If today's testimony is any predictor, that's about how long it will take for her to get Zimmerman acquitted.

*Disclaimer: Nothing said in this post should be taken as me accepting a bet. I don't gamble, and I do what I can to support the pro-gun .orgs that I can support in good conscience throughout the year, not just when some poor shlub is being railroaded by race-baiters and politicos masquerading as prosecutors and judges in Sanford, FL.

Blues

 

[mappow]

I agree. I'm just giving my take on the trail as a trail lawyer.

Fla also requires an "Armed Guard License" if you're going to be protecting property. IT'S A LIABILTY ISSUE, Did George have this license? If not, then his only defense is that Travon was aggressive and the event escalated to Life threating event. George escalated the event, he owns it. As a civilian he cannot escalate to a shoot. He engaged, made the assumption to take charge and engaged with a end result of death.
I cannot feel that his engagement was authorized by Fla. State Law. JUST again MHO.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Fla also requires an "Armed Guard License" if you're going to be protecting property. IT'S A LIABILTY ISSUE, Did George have this license? If not, then his only defense is that Travon was aggressive and the event escalated to Life threating event. George escalated the event, he owns it. As a civilian he cannot escalate to a shoot. He engaged, made the assumption to take charge and engaged with a end result of death.
I cannot feel that his engagement was authorized by Fla. State Law. JUST again MHO.

Curious how you know George engaged and escalated? It seems no one in the court room knows yet except George himself...so how do you know so much?

America was once a great nation. When neighbors looked out and cared for each other, no license needed. America has torn itself apart...with a smile on our faces.

 

[ezkl2230]

So we now know that "cracker" is a perfectly acceptable racial slur for blacks to use to describe whites, but "n****r," a word that is used freely among blacks (and one that I will not use) to describe one another, is completely unacceptable for non-blacks to use.

 

[BluesStringer]

Fla also requires an "Armed Guard License" if you're going to be protecting property. IT'S A LIABILTY ISSUE, Did George have this license? If not, then his only defense is that Travon was aggressive and the event escalated to Life threating event. George escalated the event, he owns it. As a civilian he cannot escalate to a shoot. He engaged, made the assumption to take charge and engaged with a end result of death.
I cannot feel that his engagement was authorized by Fla. State Law. JUST again MHO.

Florida State Law on the use of deadly force is pretty easy to find. And if you look on that Chapter/Section page of the code, it is sub-divided into easy-to-find specific issues within the overall issue of use of deadly force, including a sub-section on [SIZE=-1]776.041 - Use of force by aggressor, which states:

[SIZE=-1]The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
​

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
​

[/SIZE]​

​

There are very knowledgeable Florida residents on this forum who have stated that following or watching somebody is not a crime, and as such, is not considered an aggressive act in and of itself. There is zero evidence on the record at this point, whether witness or forensic, that establishes who confronted whom. Today's dishonest witness did everything she could to make it sound like Z "caught up to" M after M initially ran, but her testimony is anything but credible after today, and will likely be made even less so tomorrow. Regardless though, if Zimmerman was on the bottom having his head pounded against the concrete, as the only eye-witness to the fight said was true the very next day (video posted earlier in this thread), and he had a reasonable and good faith belief that another hit or two could knock him unconscious and unable to defend himself, even if he was the initial aggressor, the above code states clearly that he would be justified in using deadly force to stop the attack. And he did, which makes this a political trial, ravaged-up by the likes of Al "Tawanna Brawley" Sharpton and Rev. Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson in a race-baiting fest the likes of which we haven't seen since the Duke Lacrosse Team's rape-charges fiasco.

I think Zimmerman made judgment errors that are indirectly responsible for the death of Martin. His poor judgment is not illegal though, and none of his poor judgment would have justified Trayvon Martin bouncing his head off the concrete sidewalk like a basketball, or "ground-and-pounding" him "MMA-style" as the only eye-witness said he was doing in the same video I referenced above.

Even a sheepdog with horrendous judgment deserves a fair trial, and that's something that no one gets once Al Sharpton and a whole nationwide cabal of professional race-baiters gets involved in.

Blues






[/SIZE]

 

[nogods]

I don't know how many of you had the opportunity to watch/listen to the "girl" (she's 19, and was 18 at the time of the shooting) who Martin was on the phone with when it all started, but if I'm a juror, that young umm...."lady," just won the case for Zimmerman. She answered in direct examination from the prosecution that she could identify the voice screaming from a distance on the neighbor's 911 call as that of Martin's, but the end of the day question from the defense was in relation to her deposition with them during which she said something to the effect of, "It could be Trayvon, or it could not be. I don't know."

She also exposed Martin as a flaming racist when she told one of the attorneys (I think it was during direct) that Trayvon answered her question to him about who was following him by saying, "Some creepy-ass cracker."

She lied about her age early-on so as to purposely try to prevent the media from being able to publish images of her or use her real name.

I've been a court-watcher since Court-TV first came into existence (like late 70's/early 80's maybe?), and I don't think I've ever before seen a worse witness for the prosecution who had direct knowledge of events leading up to a killing. She came across as cold, almost uncaring, dishonest, angry over even having to be there, and just downright stupid. What little intelligence she showed herself to possess was employed to come up with a lie about her age to get out of being in the media, and another lie to Mom about why she didn't go to Martin's wake because, she said dishonestly, she had to go to the hospital. She was belligerent and smart-alec in her answers to both sides, but more-so to the defense side.

The defense said they probably had a couple more hours to spend with her tomorrow. If today's testimony is any predictor, that's about how long it will take for her to get Zimmerman acquitted.

*Disclaimer: Nothing said in this post should be taken as me accepting a bet. I don't gamble, and I do what I can to support the pro-gun .orgs that I can support in good conscience throughout the year, not just when some poor shlub is being railroaded by race-baiters and politicos masquerading as prosecutors and judges in Sanford, FL.

Blues

If the defense had not flubbed the opening statement then this case would already be over. But that head start the prosecution got has been lost.

Here is what the defense is considering tonight: How long can we keep the little brat on the stand before the jury starts to blame us for the agony?

 

[BluesStringer]

If the defense had not flubbed the opening statement then this case would already be over. But that head start the prosecution got has been lost.

Here is what the defense is considering tonight: How long can we keep the little brat on the stand before the jury starts to blame us for the agony?

HA! Yeah, well there is that possibility, but do you think the prosecution will forego much of an attempt to rehabilitate the brat's testimony? That could take days!

Blues

 

[mappow]

Florida State Law on the use of deadly force is pretty easy to find. And if you look on that Chapter/Section page of the code, it is sub-divided into easy-to-find specific issues within the overall issue of use of deadly force, including a sub-section on [SIZE=-1]776.041 - Use of force by aggressor, which states:

[SIZE=-1]The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
​

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
​

[/SIZE]​

​

There are very knowledgeable Florida residents on this forum who have stated that following or watching somebody is not a crime, and as such, is not considered an aggressive act in and of itself. There is zero evidence on the record at this point, whether witness or forensic, that establishes who confronted whom. Today's dishonest witness did everything she could to make it sound like Z "caught up to" M after M initially ran, but her testimony is anything but credible after today, and will likely be made even less so tomorrow. Regardless though, if Zimmerman was on the bottom having his head pounded against the concrete, as the only eye-witness to the fight said was true the very next day (video posted earlier in this thread), and he had a reasonable and good faith belief that another hit or two could knock him unconscious and unable to defend himself, even if he was the initial aggressor, the above code states clearly that he would be justified in using deadly force to stop the attack. And he did, which makes this a political trial, ravaged-up by the likes of Al "Tawanna Brawley" Sharpton and Rev. Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson in a race-baiting fest the likes of which we haven't seen since the Duke Lacrosse Team's rape-charges fiasco.

I think Zimmerman made judgment errors that are indirectly responsible for the death of Martin. His poor judgment is not illegal though, and none of his poor judgment would have justified Trayvon Martin bouncing his head off the concrete sidewalk like a basketball, or "ground-and-pounding" him "MMA-style" as the only eye-witness said he was doing in the same video I referenced above.

Even a sheepdog with horrendous judgment deserves a fair trial, and that's something that no one gets once Al Sharpton and a whole nationwide cabal of professional race-baiters gets involved in.

Blues






[/SIZE]

All I'm saying is that George chose to engage. He did so while licensed to CC. This position of responsibility was only under a Home Owners Association volunteer program. If George was aggressive in the altercation, then I believe he is guilty of manslaughter. If George held a licensed carry guard permit then he could have been aggressive in contact of a probable perp. But he did not. JMHO....
I was born and raised in Fla. and have held both Guard and Armed Guard License, although years ago. The presumption is are you allowed to engage or are you allow to observe and report. George was the latter. Anything he did afterward was aggression. He owns this and should take responsibility for it. Again, JMHO.

 

[Firefighterchen]

All I'm saying is that George chose to engage. He did so while licensed to CC. This position of responsibility was only under a Home Owners Association volunteer program. If George was aggressive in the altercation, then I believe he is guilty of manslaughter. If George held a licensed carry guard permit then he could have been aggressive in contact of a probable perp. But he did not. JMHO....
I was born and raised in Fla. and have held both Guard and Armed Guard License, although years ago. The presumption is are you allowed to engage or are you allow to observe and report. George was the latter. Anything he did afterward was aggression. He owns this and should take responsibility for it. Again, JMHO.

So much for innocent until proven guilty...or due process...or a fair trial...

 

[K7lvo]

I have a neighbor who is male, 60-ish, 5”-8” or so, and slender build who gets a lot of exercise from walking. He's not "patrolling," just walking, but he keeps his eyes open, and he's not afraid to let people know he's watching. One time he came across a guy using a slim Jim on a car window. When asked, the guy said it was his car and he'd locked his keys inside, whereupon my neighbor pulled his cellphone out and said, "Then you won't mind if I take your picture." Apparently the guy was what he said he was, because my neighbor is still vertical...

My point is that some of you would find my neighbor guilty if the slim-jimer had jumped him and gotten shot for the attack. What's up with that???

 

[BluesStringer]

All I'm saying is that George chose to engage.

As of this writing, there is zero evidence to support that conclusion. His story is that he was still out of his vehicle looking for an address to give the cops to go to when Martin confronted him after Zimmerman thought he was long gone.

He did so while licensed to CC.

Yep, also in his own neighborhood that a SPD records-keeper testified today had been plagued by burglaries in recent weeks/months. He was not patrolling as the Neighborhood Watch member, but on his way to (or maybe coming back from) the grocery store when he saw someone he didn't recognize walking around on a rainy night. It is not illegal to observe or follow anyone, whether licensed to CC or not, though he denies that he continued to follow the subject after being told "we don't need you to do that" in any case.

This position of responsibility was only under a Home Owners Association volunteer program.

Wrong. He was on a grocery run for his ol' lady.

If George was aggressive in the altercation, then I believe he is guilty of manslaughter.

Even if he was the one who could be heard screaming for help on the neighbor's 911 tape, and who the only witness to the fight says he was, indeed, the one screaming for help? Around 40 seconds of the altercation is caught on that 911 tape. Presumably it lasted longer than that or the neighbor would've had no reason to call. No matter what you believe, even if Zimmerman did confront Martin verbally, or even if he actually started the fight, once he tried to disengage and made that clear by screaming for help, he had no obligation to continue having his head beat against the concrete according to the law. That has nothing to do with whether I, you, or anyone else thinks that he was in error for ever getting out of his vehicle, the law says that if he was in grave danger after trying to disengage, he was justified in shooting.

If George held a licensed carry guard permit then he could have been aggressive in contact of a probable perp. But he did not.

This case has absolutely nothing to do with laws regulating armed security guards. Nothing whatsoever.

JMHO....

Your opinion(s) are meaningless when they are contradicted by the law, and in this case, they are.

I was born and raised in Fla. and have held both Guard and Armed Guard License, although years ago.

The law I cited above, 776.041, concerning use of force by aggressor, was revised in 2012.

The presumption is are you allowed to engage or are you allow to observe and report. George was the latter.

Wrong again. You're lumping together laws concerning the regulation of armed security guards with the acts of citizens observing the goings-on in their own neighborhoods. The only presumptions here are those that are supported by statute, and decided as having been abided by or violated by Zimmerman based only on evidence, witness testimony and the jury's conclusions about the strength and credibility of same.

Anything he did afterward was aggression.

Only if it was, and can be proven to a reasonable doubt, actual aggression. Asking someone what they're doing here is not aggression according to the law, and today's "star" witness said that is all she heard Zimmerman say before she could hear the phone rustling around in the grass and then losing the connection, suggesting that the fight was on immediately after Zimmerman's question. There is still zero evidence that Zimmerman was aggressive in any way that would fall under any FL statute that he is charged with violating.

He owns this and should take responsibility for it.

It sounds as though you are saying he should voluntarily take responsibility for murdering someone whom he says he justifiably defended himself against with deadly force. Could I possibly be reading that right? If so, I have to ask, have you ever heard of a little piece of sheepskin parchment called "The Constitution?"

Again, JMHO.

And again, your opinions are contradicted by the law.

Blues