Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (1 Viewer)

[Jojo the circus boy]

Place your "bets"...

Did I leave out any prop bets?

Any audio experts take the stand

Y/N

Martin's parents take the stand (to identify Martin's voice screaming)

Y/N

Zimmerman's parents take the stand (to identify Zimmerman's voice screaming)

Y/N

My answers

Not off to a good start.

The prosecution wanted to present a series of 911 calls as evidence that could establish who was heard screaming for help, but Judge Debra Nelson ruled against expert testimony on the calls, saying the quality of the audio makes it impossible to tell whose voice is heard in the background.

1) post your answers before criticizing my answers

2) IIRC only the state's experts were excluded not the defense experts nor the FBI experts

 

[Rayderr]

Place your "bets"...

Did I leave out any prop bets?

Any audio experts take the stand

Y/N

Martin's parents take the stand (to identify Martin's voice screaming)

Y/N

Zimmerman's parents take the stand (to identify Zimmerman's voice screaming)

Y/N

My answers

Not off to a good start.

The prosecution wanted to present a series of 911 calls as evidence that could establish who was heard screaming for help, but Judge Debra Nelson ruled against expert testimony on the calls, saying the quality of the audio makes it impossible to tell whose voice is heard in the background.

1) post your answers before criticizing my answers

2) IIRC only the state's experts were excluded not the defense experts nor the FBI experts

Somebody's a bit touchy this morning.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Place your "bets"...

Did I leave out any prop bets?

Any audio experts take the stand

Y/N

Martin's parents take the stand (to identify Martin's voice screaming)

Y/N

Zimmerman's parents take the stand (to identify Zimmerman's voice screaming)

Y/N

My answers

Not off to a good start.

The prosecution wanted to present a series of 911 calls as evidence that could establish who was heard screaming for help, but Judge Debra Nelson ruled against expert testimony on the calls, saying the quality of the audio makes it impossible to tell whose voice is heard in the background.

1) post your answers before criticizing my answers

2) IIRC only the state's experts were excluded not the defense experts nor the FBI experts

Somebody's a bit touchy this morning.

glass houses dude

 

[Rayderr]

Place your "bets"...

Did I leave out any prop bets?

Any audio experts take the stand

Y/N

Martin's parents take the stand (to identify Martin's voice screaming)

Y/N

Zimmerman's parents take the stand (to identify Zimmerman's voice screaming)

Y/N

My answers

Not off to a good start.

The prosecution wanted to present a series of 911 calls as evidence that could establish who was heard screaming for help, but Judge Debra Nelson ruled against expert testimony on the calls, saying the quality of the audio makes it impossible to tell whose voice is heard in the background.

1) post your answers before criticizing my answers

2) IIRC only the state's experts were excluded not the defense experts nor the FBI experts

Somebody's a bit touchy this morning.

glass houses dude

 

[jon_mx]

Prosecution is making some claims which are simply not true, which are going to bite them in the eyes of the jury. For instance, to say that there is no evidence that suggests Martin attacked Zimmerman prior to the shooting is a bit much. I guess they are discounting Zimmerman's injuries and eye witness accounts. It sounds impressive at first, but it will bite them later on. If the prosecution want to smack Zimmerman around as being untrustworthy, they need to shoot straight.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Prosecution is making some claims which are simply not true, which are going to bite them in the eyes of the jury. For instance, to say that there is no evidence that suggests Martin attacked Zimmerman prior to the shooting is a bit much. I guess they are discounting Zimmerman's injuries and eye witness accounts. It sounds impressive at first, but it will bite them later on. If the prosecution want to smack Zimmerman around as being untrustworthy, they need to shoot straight.

Yeah I'm cracking up at all of the holes they are introducing.

So far State's case is all emotion, they have no evidence.

They are trying to say evidence doesn't exist that should exist in their minds.

 

[The Commish]

but isn't it guilty until proven innocent?

It certainly was/is for Martin.

lol he never went to court ??? what are you talking about

The court of public opinion. The opinion represented in this thread where a vicious seasoned thug Martin was enjoying his gateway blunt on the way back to the lab to turn skittles and tea in to PCP until Zimmerman made the mistake of crossing this homicidal maniac's path.

So when i respond to people talking about an actual court you bring up public opinion as if that is a valid response why? I guess when you have a certain bias --its clear you want zimmerman to be found guilty-- it is hard to think logical.

There are a lot of you in here having a problem with this. Whether you're pulling for or against Zimmerman doesn't seem to matter. You've been given some tidbits of information from our "media" and think you know everything or at least enough to determine is guilt or innocence. Complete caricatures at this point. That's BFS's point.

 

[jon_mx]

For all those who think the prosecution is going to haul out a bunch of new evidence which has not been made public....I say....

 

[The Commish]

Tim. How on earth do you know he is a racist murderer? What we know suggests there was a fight. There was a gun. There was a shot. It sounds like a tragic sequence of events. It is quite plausible, Zimmerman was getting his ### kicked and was scared. He probably is a ######## wannabe cop, but the event was a tragedy. It was not murder. Manslaughter maybe, but the self-defense claim is quite plausible so there could never be a conviction.

The same way you "know" he wasn't The media has told him.

 

[jon_mx]

Tim. How on earth do you know he is a racist murderer? What we know suggests there was a fight. There was a gun. There was a shot. It sounds like a tragic sequence of events. It is quite plausible, Zimmerman was getting his ### kicked and was scared. He probably is a ######## wannabe cop, but the event was a tragedy. It was not murder. Manslaughter maybe, but the self-defense claim is quite plausible so there could never be a conviction.

The same way you "know" he wasn't The media has told him.

I never claimed he wasn't. I have acknowledged he is kind of a d-bad. But when someone makes an affirmative claim that someone is guilty, it should require proof. BTW, I have watched less than an hour of news the whole year.

 

[Gawain]

Zimmerman should have gone on a diet. Martin is 4 inches taller than him, but Zimmerman looks like he must weigh 250.

 

[The Commish]

Prosecution is making some claims which are simply not true, which are going to bite them in the eyes of the jury. For instance, to say that there is no evidence that suggests Martin attacked Zimmerman prior to the shooting is a bit much. I guess they are discounting Zimmerman's injuries and eye witness accounts. It sounds impressive at first, but it will bite them later on. If the prosecution want to smack Zimmerman around as being untrustworthy, they need to shoot straight.

They didn't say the injuries didn't exist at all. They said there's no evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman prior to the altercation that lead to the shooting. The witnesses will testify that they saw the altercation that lead to the shooting. It' quite likely Zimmerman's injuries were sustained during that altercation and not one prior.

 

[Rayderr]

Zimmerman should have gone on a diet. Martin is 4 inches taller than him, but Zimmerman looks like he must weigh 250.

fat does not mean being able to beat the crap out of anyone.

 

[jon_mx]

Prosecution is making some claims which are simply not true, which are going to bite them in the eyes of the jury. For instance, to say that there is no evidence that suggests Martin attacked Zimmerman prior to the shooting is a bit much. I guess they are discounting Zimmerman's injuries and eye witness accounts. It sounds impressive at first, but it will bite them later on. If the prosecution want to smack Zimmerman around as being untrustworthy, they need to shoot straight.

They didn't say the injuries didn't exist at all. They said there's no evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman prior to the altercation that lead to the shooting. The witnesses will testify that they saw the altercation that lead to the shooting. It' quite likely Zimmerman's injuries were sustained during that altercation and not one prior.

One notable missing thing. They did not claim to have proof that Zimmerman started the altercation either. This is a pure circumstantial case. Zimmerman was a wannabe cop. Zimmerman profiled Martin as a theif. Zimmerman took classes on fighting. Therefore Zimmerman murdered Martin. It is a huge leap and really not consistant with the fact that Zimmerman called the cops and were waiting for them to arrive.

 

[The Commish]

Prosecution is making some claims which are simply not true, which are going to bite them in the eyes of the jury. For instance, to say that there is no evidence that suggests Martin attacked Zimmerman prior to the shooting is a bit much. I guess they are discounting Zimmerman's injuries and eye witness accounts. It sounds impressive at first, but it will bite them later on. If the prosecution want to smack Zimmerman around as being untrustworthy, they need to shoot straight.

They didn't say the injuries didn't exist at all. They said there's no evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman prior to the altercation that lead to the shooting. The witnesses will testify that they saw the altercation that lead to the shooting. It' quite likely Zimmerman's injuries were sustained during that altercation and not one prior.

One notable missing thing. They did not claim to have proof that Zimmerman started the altercation either. This is a pure circumstantial case. Zimmerman was a wannabe cop. Zimmerman profiled Martin as a theif. Zimmerman took classes on fighting. Therefore Zimmerman murdered Martin. It is a huge leap and really not consistant with the fact that Zimmerman called the cops and were waiting for them to arrive.

If there's anything we've learned in these high profile cases is that the prosecution can bury themselves by over promising in the opening statements. There's no sure fire way to prove who started this just like there's no sure fire way to prove the exact time the injuries were sustained. This trial is going to go to the best story teller IMO.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Prosecution is making some claims which are simply not true, which are going to bite them in the eyes of the jury. For instance, to say that there is no evidence that suggests Martin attacked Zimmerman prior to the shooting is a bit much. I guess they are discounting Zimmerman's injuries and eye witness accounts. It sounds impressive at first, but it will bite them later on. If the prosecution want to smack Zimmerman around as being untrustworthy, they need to shoot straight.

They didn't say the injuries didn't exist at all. They said there's no evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman prior to the altercation that lead to the shooting. The witnesses will testify that they saw the altercation that lead to the shooting. It' quite likely Zimmerman's injuries were sustained during that altercation and not one prior.

what?

 

[greenroom]

Prosecution is making some claims which are simply not true, which are going to bite them in the eyes of the jury. For instance, to say that there is no evidence that suggests Martin attacked Zimmerman prior to the shooting is a bit much. I guess they are discounting Zimmerman's injuries and eye witness accounts. It sounds impressive at first, but it will bite them later on. If the prosecution want to smack Zimmerman around as being untrustworthy, they need to shoot straight.

They didn't say the injuries didn't exist at all. They said there's no evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman prior to the altercation that lead to the shooting. The witnesses will testify that they saw the altercation that lead to the shooting. It' quite likely Zimmerman's injuries were sustained during that altercation and not one prior.

what?

Please show the evidence that Martin attacted Zimmerman prior to the shooting? They were in a fight that no one knows who started and Z shot M. But please show that evidence that you have linked up to show that M attacted Z first.

 

[The Commish]

Prosecution is making some claims which are simply not true, which are going to bite them in the eyes of the jury. For instance, to say that there is no evidence that suggests Martin attacked Zimmerman prior to the shooting is a bit much. I guess they are discounting Zimmerman's injuries and eye witness accounts. It sounds impressive at first, but it will bite them later on. If the prosecution want to smack Zimmerman around as being untrustworthy, they need to shoot straight.

They didn't say the injuries didn't exist at all. They said there's no evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman prior to the altercation that lead to the shooting. The witnesses will testify that they saw the altercation that lead to the shooting. It' quite likely Zimmerman's injuries were sustained during that altercation and not one prior.

what?

I recommend DVRing this whole thing....you can then play it back how ever many times you need to until you get it.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Prosecution is making some claims which are simply not true, which are going to bite them in the eyes of the jury. For instance, to say that there is no evidence that suggests Martin attacked Zimmerman prior to the shooting is a bit much. I guess they are discounting Zimmerman's injuries and eye witness accounts. It sounds impressive at first, but it will bite them later on. If the prosecution want to smack Zimmerman around as being untrustworthy, they need to shoot straight.

They didn't say the injuries didn't exist at all. They said there's no evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman prior to the altercation that lead to the shooting. The witnesses will testify that they saw the altercation that lead to the shooting. It' quite likely Zimmerman's injuries were sustained during that altercation and not one prior.

what?

I recommend DVRing this whole thing....you can then play it back how ever many times you need to until you get it.

I'm watching it. Nobody has stated during this trial or prior that there was a PRIOR altercation separate from when Martin confronted Zimmerman and punched him.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

New prop bet:

Defense mentions "Grass Stains on Martin's knees" during opening statement

Y / N

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

A) Zimmerman pursued Martin (undisputed)

B) An altercation occurred -- no one knows who started it

C) Zimmerman shot Martin (also undisputed)

Guessing that they'll argue that since Zimmerman was the "aggressor" in A & C that he was also most likely to have acted aggressively in B.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

A) Zimmerman pursued Martin (undisputed)

B) An altercation occurred -- no one knows who started it

C) Zimmerman shot Martin (also undisputed)

Guessing that they'll argue that since Zimmerman was the "aggressor" in A & C that he was also most likely to have acted aggressively in B.

I'd object to pursued. (to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, etc.; chase.)

 

[The Commish]

Prosecution is making some claims which are simply not true, which are going to bite them in the eyes of the jury. For instance, to say that there is no evidence that suggests Martin attacked Zimmerman prior to the shooting is a bit much. I guess they are discounting Zimmerman's injuries and eye witness accounts. It sounds impressive at first, but it will bite them later on. If the prosecution want to smack Zimmerman around as being untrustworthy, they need to shoot straight.

They didn't say the injuries didn't exist at all. They said there's no evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman prior to the altercation that lead to the shooting. The witnesses will testify that they saw the altercation that lead to the shooting. It' quite likely Zimmerman's injuries were sustained during that altercation and not one prior.

what?

I recommend DVRing this whole thing....you can then play it back how ever many times you need to until you get it.

I'm watching it. Nobody has stated during this trial or prior that there was a PRIOR altercation separate from when Martin confronted Zimmerman and punched him.

They absolutely said there was no evidence to suggest that Martin attacked Zimmerman prior to the altercation leading to the shooting. The story here is important. Are the jury members going to believe the injuries were the result of an attack or a result of self defense?

 

[The Commish]

Certainly one approach Let's turn this into an episode of Comedy Central's "Stand Up"

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Prosecution is making some claims which are simply not true, which are going to bite them in the eyes of the jury. For instance, to say that there is no evidence that suggests Martin attacked Zimmerman prior to the shooting is a bit much. I guess they are discounting Zimmerman's injuries and eye witness accounts. It sounds impressive at first, but it will bite them later on. If the prosecution want to smack Zimmerman around as being untrustworthy, they need to shoot straight.

They didn't say the injuries didn't exist at all. They said there's no evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman prior to the altercation that lead to the shooting. The witnesses will testify that they saw the altercation that lead to the shooting. It' quite likely Zimmerman's injuries were sustained during that altercation and not one prior.

what?

I recommend DVRing this whole thing....you can then play it back how ever many times you need to until you get it.

I'm watching it. Nobody has stated during this trial or prior that there was a PRIOR altercation separate from when Martin confronted Zimmerman and punched him.

They absolutely said there was no evidence to suggest that Martin attacked Zimmerman prior to the altercation leading to the shooting. The story here is important. Are the jury members going to believe the injuries were the result of an attack or a result of self defense?

So they are making arguments for events that the defense is never going to try to make, BRILLIANT!

There was one altercation (a heated or angry dispute; noisy argument or controversy), and it occurred when Zimmerman got off the phone with NEN.

There is no other altercation that anyone should think happened prior to that as you asserted, your statement makes zero sense.

 

[The Commish]

I now remember why I left this thread several months ago....at least it will be entertaining.

 

[jon_mx]

Prosecution is making some claims which are simply not true, which are going to bite them in the eyes of the jury. For instance, to say that there is no evidence that suggests Martin attacked Zimmerman prior to the shooting is a bit much. I guess they are discounting Zimmerman's injuries and eye witness accounts. It sounds impressive at first, but it will bite them later on. If the prosecution want to smack Zimmerman around as being untrustworthy, they need to shoot straight.

They didn't say the injuries didn't exist at all. They said there's no evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman prior to the altercation that lead to the shooting. The witnesses will testify that they saw the altercation that lead to the shooting. It' quite likely Zimmerman's injuries were sustained during that altercation and not one prior.

what?

Please show the evidence that Martin attacted Zimmerman prior to the shooting? They were in a fight that no one knows who started and Z shot M. But please show that evidence that you have linked up to show that M attacted Z first.

Without know exactly how the fight was started, I would say having someone pinned to the ground and punching them in the face constitutes an attack.

 

[The Commish]

Do we have any defense attorneys on this board? As I listen to this guy, I don't get what he's trying to do. Seems to me that he just gave a legit reason for why Martin would be coming through that path from the 7-11 What's he trying to accomplish in this statement?

 

[The Commish]

Prosecution is making some claims which are simply not true, which are going to bite them in the eyes of the jury. For instance, to say that there is no evidence that suggests Martin attacked Zimmerman prior to the shooting is a bit much. I guess they are discounting Zimmerman's injuries and eye witness accounts. It sounds impressive at first, but it will bite them later on. If the prosecution want to smack Zimmerman around as being untrustworthy, they need to shoot straight.

They didn't say the injuries didn't exist at all. They said there's no evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman prior to the altercation that lead to the shooting. The witnesses will testify that they saw the altercation that lead to the shooting. It' quite likely Zimmerman's injuries were sustained during that altercation and not one prior.

what?

Please show the evidence that Martin attacted Zimmerman prior to the shooting? They were in a fight that no one knows who started and Z shot M. But please show that evidence that you have linked up to show that M attacted Z first.

Without know exactly how the fight was started, I would say having someone pinned to the ground and punching them in the face constitutes an attack.

Or self defense depending on who started the fight

 

[lod01]

Even the knock knock joke won't steal Jodi Arias' thunder but it is some meat for Nancy Grace to work with tonight.

 

[timschochet]

Even the knock knock joke won't steal Jodi Arias' thunder but it is some meat for Nancy Grace to work with tonight.

I missed this. Can someone describe it? Thx

 

[jon_mx]

Prosecution is making some claims which are simply not true, which are going to bite them in the eyes of the jury. For instance, to say that there is no evidence that suggests Martin attacked Zimmerman prior to the shooting is a bit much. I guess they are discounting Zimmerman's injuries and eye witness accounts. It sounds impressive at first, but it will bite them later on. If the prosecution want to smack Zimmerman around as being untrustworthy, they need to shoot straight.

They didn't say the injuries didn't exist at all. They said there's no evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman prior to the altercation that lead to the shooting. The witnesses will testify that they saw the altercation that lead to the shooting. It' quite likely Zimmerman's injuries were sustained during that altercation and not one prior.

what?

Please show the evidence that Martin attacted Zimmerman prior to the shooting? They were in a fight that no one knows who started and Z shot M. But please show that evidence that you have linked up to show that M attacted Z first.

Without know exactly how the fight was started, I would say having someone pinned to the ground and punching them in the face constitutes an attack.

Or self defense depending on who started the fight

The real question becomes, if Zimmerman was hell bent on murdering Martin, why not just shoot him. Why get into a fight with a loaded gun endangering his own life, then kill him? It makes zero sense. This whole case is just stupid.

BTW, Self-defense would be pinning the guy to the ground. Punching in the face is an attack.

 

[timschochet]

Zimmerman looks likes going to fall asleep.

 

[The Commish]

Even the knock knock joke won't steal Jodi Arias' thunder but it is some meat for Nancy Grace to work with tonight.

I missed this. Can someone describe it? Thx

It was a knock knock joke about knowing who Zimmerman was and it was told to a jury with 6 women on it...I think 5 are mothers and Martin's parents are sitting within striking distance. Something along the lines of:

Knock Knock

Who's there?

George Zimmerman

George Zimmerman who?

Ok, you're on the jury.

I guess, if a jury member wanted, they could take it as a shot at them as well...not "knowing" much....just so strange and bizarre.

 

[The Commish]

Prosecution is making some claims which are simply not true, which are going to bite them in the eyes of the jury. For instance, to say that there is no evidence that suggests Martin attacked Zimmerman prior to the shooting is a bit much. I guess they are discounting Zimmerman's injuries and eye witness accounts. It sounds impressive at first, but it will bite them later on. If the prosecution want to smack Zimmerman around as being untrustworthy, they need to shoot straight.

They didn't say the injuries didn't exist at all. They said there's no evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman prior to the altercation that lead to the shooting. The witnesses will testify that they saw the altercation that lead to the shooting. It' quite likely Zimmerman's injuries were sustained during that altercation and not one prior.

what?

Please show the evidence that Martin attacted Zimmerman prior to the shooting? They were in a fight that no one knows who started and Z shot M. But please show that evidence that you have linked up to show that M attacted Z first.

Without know exactly how the fight was started, I would say having someone pinned to the ground and punching them in the face constitutes an attack.

Or self defense depending on who started the fight

The real question becomes, if Zimmerman was hell bent on murdering Martin, why not just shoot him. Why get into a fight with a loaded gun endangering his own life, then kill him? It makes zero sense. This whole case is just stupid.

BTW, Self-defense would be pinning the guy to the ground. Punching in the face is an attack.

I'm not sure that's ever going to become the question. That would be premeditated and murder 1. I don't think the prosecution would even try to go there. They are perfectly content with a story along the lines of

1. Zimmerman saw someone he didn't know.

2. Took it upon himself to "investigate" the situation.

3. Came across as aggressive towards a teenager (tons of tangents to go off on as to why....take your pick here)

4. Teen felt threatened

5. Scuffle ensued.

6. Kid is dead.

The rest will be filled with emotional tidbits to sway one way or the other.

 

[timschochet]

CNn analysts: defense it getting creamed here.

 

[timschochet]

Even the knock knock joke won't steal Jodi Arias' thunder but it is some meat for Nancy Grace to work with tonight.

I missed this. Can someone describe it? Thx

It was a knock knock joke about knowing who Zimmerman was and it was told to a jury with 6 women on it...I think 5 are mothers and Martin's parents are sitting within striking distance. Something along the lines of:Knock Knock

Who's there?

George Zimmerman

George Zimmerman who?

Ok, you're on the jury.

I guess, if a jury member wanted, they could take it as a shot at them as well...not "knowing" much....just so strange and bizarre.

Wow. That's terrible.

 

[jwp]

Even the knock knock joke won't steal Jodi Arias' thunder but it is some meat for Nancy Grace to work with tonight.

I missed this. Can someone describe it? Thx

I also missed it but google is my friend:

A defense attorney for the George Zimmerman began opening arguments today in the second-degree murder case that has garnered international attention with a knock-knock joke.

Defense attorney Don West stood up to address the jury after the prosecution had finished its opening arguments.

"Knock-knock," he began "Who's there? George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman who? Good you are on the jury."

People in the courtroom seemed a little uneasy at the joke.

 

[jon_mx]

CNn analysts: defense it getting creamed here.

LOL....shocker.

 

[timschochet]

"You don't need to do that (follow Martin)".

We discussed months ago whether or not this was a big deal. Apparently it is. The defense will point out that it was not a legal instruction but it still is really bad for them.

 

[pantherclub]

CNn analysts: defense it getting creamed here.

LOL....shocker.

what?

 

[The Commish]

CNn analysts: defense it getting creamed here.

LOL....shocker.

what?

Liberal media is out to get Zimmay

The comment isn't about Zimmerman though...it's about his council. I'd like to hear a defense of this approach from someone who thinks it's perfectly acceptable to tell a joke in a murder case where jurors have kids and the deceased child's family is sitting right there. We don't even have to get into the other stuff at this point. Let's just focus on this particular issue for a moment.

 

[Slapdash]

Even the knock knock joke won't steal Jodi Arias' thunder but it is some meat for Nancy Grace to work with tonight.

I missed this. Can someone describe it? Thx

It was a knock knock joke about knowing who Zimmerman was and it was told to a jury with 6 women on it...I think 5 are mothers and Martin's parents are sitting within striking distance. Something along the lines of:

Knock Knock

Who's there?

George Zimmerman

George Zimmerman who?

Ok, you're on the jury.

I guess, if a jury member wanted, they could take it as a shot at them as well...not "knowing" much....just so strange and bizarre.

WTF

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

"You don't need to do that (follow Martin)".

We discussed months ago whether or not this was a big deal. Apparently it is. The defense will point out that it was not a legal instruction but it still is really bad for them.

 

[timschochet]

"You don't need to do that (follow Martin)".

We discussed months ago whether or not this was a big deal. Apparently it is. The defense will point out that it was not a legal instruction but it still is really bad for them.

I'm watching this now on CNN Headline (it's a few minutes behind because of commercials), and for some reason I can't fathom, the defense keeps bringing this up. He just pointed out that Zimmerman was asked if he was following Martin, and Zimmerman said yes, and Zimmerman was already out of the car. Why would the defense emphasize this? I don't get it.

 

[timschochet]

Defense: "So George Zimmerman stopped." (After being told, "We don't need you to do that.")

Why stop? Why not turn around, go back to his car, get in the car, and go home?

 

[Slapdash]

When will the defense bring up the PCP?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

"You don't need to do that (follow Martin)".

We discussed months ago whether or not this was a big deal. Apparently it is. The defense will point out that it was not a legal instruction but it still is really bad for them.

I'm watching this now on CNN Headline (it's a few minutes behind because of commercials), and for some reason I can't fathom, the defense keeps bringing this up. He just pointed out that Zimmerman was asked if he was following Martin, and Zimmerman said yes, and Zimmerman was already out of the car. Why would the defense emphasize this? I don't get it.

A criminal defense attorney pointed out that while its not considered to be an order by law enforcement, it is considered to be odd that Zimmerman called them for advice and then did not listen to them when they mentioned it wasn't necessary to follow Martin. The defense needs to. Explain why.

Again, it can not be proven that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin...

Alternatively, according to the timeline, it can be assumed that Trayvon instead came back to Zimmerman..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Defense: "So George Zimmerman stopped." (After being told, "We don't need you to do that.")

Why stop? Why not turn around, go back to his car, get in the car, and go home?

Doesn't matter..

Maybe he was on his way back to his car when Trayvon confronted him..

 

[timschochet]

"You don't need to do that (follow Martin)".

We discussed months ago whether or not this was a big deal. Apparently it is. The defense will point out that it was not a legal instruction but it still is really bad for them.

I'm watching this now on CNN Headline (it's a few minutes behind because of commercials), and for some reason I can't fathom, the defense keeps bringing this up. He just pointed out that Zimmerman was asked if he was following Martin, and Zimmerman said yes, and Zimmerman was already out of the car. Why would the defense emphasize this? I don't get it.

A criminal defense attorney pointed out that while its not considered to be an order by law enforcement, it is considered to be odd that Zimmerman called them for advice and then did not listen to them when they mentioned it wasn't necessary to follow Martin. The defense needs to. Explain why.

Again, it can not be proven that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin...

Alternatively, according to the timeline, it can be assumed that Trayvon instead came back to Zimmerman..

No, as I'm watching this I don't believe this argument will fly. The prosecution hammered in the jurors' minds that Zimmerman followed Martin, even after he was not supposed to. It's going to be very hard for the defense to argue against this claim- I'm not sure they can, no matter what the timeline purports to say. The timeline is confusing at best.