(th)ink by Keith Knight

(th)inkNo Zoom

Comments (21) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Clark  Kent

    Clark Kent said, over 1 year ago

    Jaw dropping. Just…..wow.

  2. Gary McSpook

    Gary McSpook said, over 1 year ago

    If (when) found guilty, will this provide Zimmerman with an automatic grounds for appeal?
    “Your Honor, my attorney was an idiot. He opened my defense with a freaking knock-knock joke!”

  3. d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C's Release

    d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C's Release said, over 1 year ago

    @Gary McSpook

    The SCOTUS already ruled on an incompetent consul case. They basically said, “you’re screwed.”

  4. The Wolf In Your Midst

    The Wolf In Your Midst said, over 1 year ago

    I think Zimmerman is guilty as sin, but he’s still entitled to a fair trial… can a lawyer as stupid as that possibly provide him an adequate defense?

  5. Fourcrows

    Fourcrows said, over 1 year ago


    Actually, if his lawyer keeps pulling idiotic stunts like that, he could call for a mistrial. And yes, if things get bad enough, he has a case for an appeal.

  6. mikefive

    mikefive said, over 1 year ago

    @The Wolf In Your Midst

    My thoughts about Zimmerman were as yours (a way of thought I seldom allow myself) right after Trayvon was killed. A couple of months later they released pictures of the back of Zimmerman’s head where it had been smashed into the concrete multiple times requiring multiple stitches. I had had no evidence except the sensationalism presented by the press in my presumption of his guilt on a murder charge. The pictures made me wish I had kept an open mind. Now I have no idea whether he is guilty of murder or not.

  7. mbraun

    mbraun said, over 1 year ago

    The joke was: “Knock-knock”,“Who’s there?”,“George ZImmerman”,“George Zimmerman who?”,“You’re on the jury!”

  8. Rockngolfer

    Rockngolfer said, over 1 year ago

    They have the trial on the big screen TV at the clubhouse so I heard two minutes of it. They claim it is day 4, but don’t count 8 days of jury selection. I think it will last a looonnnggg time.

  9. ossiningaling

    ossiningaling said, over 1 year ago

    @d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C's Release

    If that happened prior to the Roberts court, they could conceivably overturn it.

  10. ahab

    ahab GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    If Zimmerman loses, he can count on the Robert’s Supreme Court, which surely will say he can shoot whomever he pleases as long as he is an NRA member.

  11. Fourcrows

    Fourcrows said, over 1 year ago


    What I was getting at is this – a mistrial works in the defense’s favor because, if it happens after the prosecution has already presented the case, a new defense attorney has seen their opening hand, and can build a new defense strategy around that. All they need is reasonable doubt, and he’s off the hook, like Casey Anthony.

  12. hippogriff

    hippogriff said, over 1 year ago

    Pity I wasn’t permitted to see the cartoon, only the discussion. But then I come from a long line of ethnically oppressed: Anglo-Saxons by Normans, Celts by English, Cherokee by “Americans”.

  13. Gary McSpook

    Gary McSpook said, over 1 year ago


    And on the video of him telling the joke, the silence afterwards is deafening.
    “Is this mic on? I know you’re out there, I can hear you breathing.
    Unlike Trayvon Martin.”

  14. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 1 year ago

    I’m not making up my mind until I hear both sides — and even then I’m not sure we will really know what happened. I don’t think I’d like Zimmerman much, but that doesn’t mean he’s guilty. I can easily see a jury deciding that they can’t convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

  15. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 1 year ago


    I agree that there are facts not in dispute. I am not convinced as yet that the facts not in dispute lead to a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. The whole point of having a trial is to find out. Look, I don’t like the guy, I think he shouldn’t have been strutting around pretending to be a cop, I think he shouldn’t have been carrying a gun, I think he shouldn’t have followed Martin, but I also can imagine a situation in which Martin attacked him and pounded his head against the sidewalk. I’m not saying that I think that happened, because I don’t know what happened. At a minimum we should wait for the evidence to come out in court. Maybe that evidence will be enough to decide the issue, maybe it will leave the situation in reasonable doubt. I don’t know. There’s an important principle here, or maybe more than one. (1) People are innocent until they are proved guilty, even if you don’t like them. (2) We don’t have all the information, and therefore we shouldn’t be too quick to form a judgment. (3) We aren’t in the courtroom, and we aren’t seeing and hearing everything the jury is seeing and hearing. These are principles I want the right to apply when someone I like is on trial, and therefore I feel that I should apply these principles when someone I don’t like is on trial.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (6).