Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (1 Viewer)

[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?

Doesn't matter..

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

I doubt the jury is going to believe this. But we'll see.

 

[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?

Doesn't matter..

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

I doubt the jury is going to believe this. But we'll see.

ETA- even the defense isn't trying to make this argument.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

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.

You don't think the defense will point out that if Zimmerman was looking to kill Trayvon, he could have done it without a struggle?

 

[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..

I doubt the jury is going to believe this. But we'll see.

ETA- even the defense isn't trying to make this argument.

The trial just started... I'm sure they plan on looking over the timeline and the distance traveled..

 

[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..

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.

Trayvons phone was found close to the intersection of the buildings Zimmerman first saw Trayvon go in between.. We know Trayvon was using the phone when he met Zimmerman.. too much time has gone by for Trayvon to have not either doubled back or hid there and waited.. Thats a HUGE obstacle for the prosecution..

The timeline is only confusing to you because you want it to be..

They have audio with timestamp where Zimmerman got out of his car.. They have phone records showing when Trayvon was last on the phone.. They have a witness telling them Trayvons phone went dead during the initial confrontation.. They know where trayvons phone was found.. Pretty easy to figure out distance that can be covered at both a walk or run..

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

"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.

Defense emphasizes this to show that Zimmerman was not lying to dispatch.

 

[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?

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 of1. 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.

You don't think the defense will point out that if Zimmerman was looking to kill Trayvon, he could have done it without a struggle?

State has a much more sinister plan.

They will call to the stand a previous teacher of Zimmerman that taught him a class on SYG and similar laws. They will try to make the case that Zimmerman wanted to kill Martin, but he was educated about the law enough to know what he needs to do to not get "caught". Then they will review the Hannity interview in which Zimmerman responds to a question from Hannity, "Are you familiar with SYG?" or something similar to which Zimmerman responds "no."

Bank on it.

 

[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.

Trayvons phone was found close to the intersection of the buildings Zimmerman first saw Trayvon go in between.. We know Trayvon was using the phone when he met Zimmerman.. too much time has gone by for Trayvon to have not either doubled back or hid there and waited.. Thats a HUGE obstacle for the prosecution..

Actually I don't think it is at all. So what if Martin confronted Zimmerman and asked "Why are you following me?" (Which the defense just argued.) That doesn't change the fact that it was Zimmerman following Martin, it only confirms it.

 

[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..

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.

Trayvons phone was found close to the intersection of the buildings Zimmerman first saw Trayvon go in between.. We know Trayvon was using the phone when he met Zimmerman.. too much time has gone by for Trayvon to have not either doubled back or hid there and waited.. Thats a HUGE obstacle for the prosecution..

Actually I don't think it is at all. So what if Martin confronted Zimmerman and asked "Why are you following me?" (Which the defense just argued.) That doesn't change the fact that it was Zimmerman following Martin, it only confirms it.

No it doesn't confirm it.. Zimmerman could have been on his way back to the car..

They have audio with timestamp where Zimmerman got out of his car.. They have phone records showing when Trayvon was last on the phone.. They have a witness telling them Trayvons phone went dead during the initial confrontation.. They know where trayvons phone was found.. Pretty easy to figure out distance that can be covered at both a walk or run..

 

[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.

Trayvons phone was found close to the intersection of the buildings Zimmerman first saw Trayvon go in between.. We know Trayvon was using the phone when he met Zimmerman.. too much time has gone by for Trayvon to have not either doubled back or hid there and waited.. Thats a HUGE obstacle for the prosecution..

Actually I don't think it is at all. So what if Martin confronted Zimmerman and asked "Why are you following me?" (Which the defense just argued.) That doesn't change the fact that it was Zimmerman following Martin, it only confirms it.

No it doesn't confirm it.. Zimmerman could have been on his way back to the car..

They have audio with timestamp where Zimmerman got out of his car.. They have phone records showing when Trayvon was last on the phone.. They have a witness telling them Trayvons phone went dead during the initial confrontation.. They know where trayvons phone was found.. Pretty easy to figure out distance that can be covered at both a walk or run..

The defense has already acknowledged that this did not happen, so you should probably stop suggesting that it did. According to the attorney, when Zimmerman received instruction not to follow Martin, he "stopped". If the defense was going to argue that Zimmerman was heading back to his car, they would have done so right then. They did not. I'm afraid that internet argument is already dead.

 

[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..

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.

Trayvons phone was found close to the intersection of the buildings Zimmerman first saw Trayvon go in between.. We know Trayvon was using the phone when he met Zimmerman.. too much time has gone by for Trayvon to have not either doubled back or hid there and waited.. Thats a HUGE obstacle for the prosecution..

Actually I don't think it is at all. So what if Martin confronted Zimmerman and asked "Why are you following me?" (Which the defense just argued.) That doesn't change the fact that it was Zimmerman following Martin, it only confirms it.

No it doesn't confirm it.. Zimmerman could have been on his way back to the car..

They have audio with timestamp where Zimmerman got out of his car.. They have phone records showing when Trayvon was last on the phone.. They have a witness telling them Trayvons phone went dead during the initial confrontation.. They know where trayvons phone was found.. Pretty easy to figure out distance that can be covered at both a walk or run..

The defense has already acknowledged that this did not happen, so you should probably stop suggesting that it did. According to the attorney, when Zimmerman received instruction not to follow Martin, he "stopped". If the defense was going to argue that Zimmerman was heading back to his car, they would have done so right then. They did not. I'm afraid that internet argument is already dead.

Saying that he "stopped" following does not say that he was frozen in his tracks.. Nice try though..

Obviously he was doing something else besides following Trayvon if he "stopped" following when he was told they didn't need him to follow..

 

[Lutherman2112]

Since the defense mentioned it:

Kel-tec PF-9 Recoil Demonstration

 

[timschochet]

Defense discussing a witness who saw Zimmerman on top of Martin. "But she was wrong".

No mention yet of "John"...

 

[jamny]

I hope he falls asleep.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The Zimmerman Joke was completely botched.. I can't believe he even attempted that.. Not only was it inappropriate, it was poorly delivered.. Wow..

 

[timschochet]

Prosecution from before:

Listen carefully to the tape- you will hear the screaming, and the screaming stops when the gun was fired...Trayvon Martin was silenced.

Pretty powerful stuff.

 

[jon_mx]

Prosecution from before:

Listen carefully to the tape- you will hear the screaming, and the screaming stops when the gun was fired...Trayvon Martin was silenced.

Pretty powerful stuff.

Only if they can prove it. They can dress up their case with a lot of dramatic lines, but unless they can show in fact that is what happened, it is just BS.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Sounds like the Judge is allowing the statments made by Zimmerman to the police and the neighbor to be used.. Looks like the defense is setting this up for a self defense claim through statments to police..

 

[timschochet]

Prosecution from before:

Listen carefully to the tape- you will hear the screaming, and the screaming stops when the gun was fired...Trayvon Martin was silenced.

Pretty powerful stuff.

Only if they can prove it. They can dress up their case with a lot of dramatic lines, but unless they can show in fact that is what happened, it is just BS.

Of course. But what I meant was that the presentation is much more direct, much more forceful IMO, than the defense.

 

[timschochet]

Sounds like the Judge is allowing the statments made by Zimmerman to the police and the neighbor to be used.. Looks like the defense is setting this up for a self defense claim through statments to police..

Yes. That contradicts what we learned earlier, and also means that I was wrong when I wrote that Zimmerman would almost certainly testify.

I still believe however that the defense's case without Zimmerman's direct testimony will be too weak to secure an acquittal. We'll see.

 

[jon_mx]

Prosecution from before:

Listen carefully to the tape- you will hear the screaming, and the screaming stops when the gun was fired...Trayvon Martin was silenced.

Pretty powerful stuff.

Only if they can prove it. They can dress up their case with a lot of dramatic lines, but unless they can show in fact that is what happened, it is just BS.

Of course. But what I meant was that the presentation is much more direct, much more forceful IMO, than the defense.

The prosecution does have more money and more skilled lawyers. But it is not enough to overcome a case which is full of holes, IMHO.

 

[timschochet]

John has now been brought up. Looks like he will testify after all.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Sounds like the Judge is allowing the statments made by Zimmerman to the police and the neighbor to be used.. Looks like the defense is setting this up for a self defense claim through statments to police..

Yes. That contradicts what we learned earlier, and also means that I was wrong when I wrote that Zimmerman would almost certainly testify.

I still believe however that the defense's case without Zimmerman's direct testimony will be too weak to secure an acquittal. We'll see.

You mean, what you proclaimed earlier..

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

The Zimmerman Joke was completely botched.. I can't believe he even attempted that.. Not only was it inappropriate, it was poorly delivered.. Wow..

I disagree. It accomplished exactly what he wanted.

Guy set the tone.

West lightened the mood (at his expense) but got a good reaction (laughter).

 

[Carolina Hustler]

John has now been brought up. Looks like he will testify after all.

You mean you're wrong again? lol

 

[timschochet]

Prosecution from before:

Listen carefully to the tape- you will hear the screaming, and the screaming stops when the gun was fired...Trayvon Martin was silenced.

Pretty powerful stuff.

Only if they can prove it. They can dress up their case with a lot of dramatic lines, but unless they can show in fact that is what happened, it is just BS.

Of course. But what I meant was that the presentation is much more direct, much more forceful IMO, than the defense.

The prosecution does have more money and more skilled lawyers. But it is not enough to overcome a case which is full of holes, IMHO.

Not sure about this (though it seems like it today.) Usually this is NEVER the case in high profile trials.

 

[timschochet]

Sounds like the Judge is allowing the statments made by Zimmerman to the police and the neighbor to be used.. Looks like the defense is setting this up for a self defense claim through statments to police..

Yes. That contradicts what we learned earlier, and also means that I was wrong when I wrote that Zimmerman would almost certainly testify.

I still believe however that the defense's case without Zimmerman's direct testimony will be too weak to secure an acquittal. We'll see.

You mean, what you proclaimed earlier..

No, I didn't proclaim it. I think JoJo reported it from a blog, if I recall correctly.

 

[jon_mx]

Sounds like the Judge is allowing the statments made by Zimmerman to the police and the neighbor to be used.. Looks like the defense is setting this up for a self defense claim through statments to police..

Yes. That contradicts what we learned earlier, and also means that I was wrong when I wrote that Zimmerman would almost certainly testify.

I still believe however that the defense's case without Zimmerman's direct testimony will be too weak to secure an acquittal. We'll see.

Despite being told 1000 times, you seem to remain under this delusion that the defense has to prove its case. The prosecution is the one with the burdon to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman wanted to murder Martin.

 

[timschochet]

John has now been brought up. Looks like he will testify after all.

You mean you're wrong again? lol

No. I never said that John wouldn't testify. I wrote that I didn't know, because we hadn't heard from the guy in a year, and I found it odd that so many people were relying on this testimony as reason why this trial should not be happening. Somebody else wrote that he might be "too scared" to testify. (Was that you? I can't recall.)

 

[timschochet]

Sounds like the Judge is allowing the statments made by Zimmerman to the police and the neighbor to be used.. Looks like the defense is setting this up for a self defense claim through statments to police..

Yes. That contradicts what we learned earlier, and also means that I was wrong when I wrote that Zimmerman would almost certainly testify.

I still believe however that the defense's case without Zimmerman's direct testimony will be too weak to secure an acquittal. We'll see.

Despite being told 1000 times, you seem to remain under this delusion that the defense has to prove its case. The prosecution is the one with the burdon to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman wanted to murder Martin.

Just about every "expert" on TV has been unanimous that Zimmerman has to testify in this case if he wants to walk. That doesn't make any of them correct, of course, but it does suggest that my own take on this is not quite as oddball as you would like to make it out to be.

 

[squistion]

The Zimmerman Joke was completely botched.. I can't believe he even attempted that.. Not only was it inappropriate, it was poorly delivered.. Wow..

I disagree. It accomplished exactly what he wanted.

Guy set the tone.

West lightened the mood (at his expense) but got a good reaction (laughter).

Not according to Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/24/prosecutors-defense-set-to-make-opening-statements-in-george-zimmerman-trial/?cmpid=cmty_twitter_fn

Don West followed with opening statements on behalf of Zimmerman, offering a knock-knock joke that fell flat before the stone-faced jurors.

"Who's there?" West said. "George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman who? Okay, good. You're on the jury."

Prior to the failed attempt at humor, West told a somber version of events, one that portrayed his client as a victim who acted to save his own life.

 

[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.

WTF

I didn't get it either. I've been watching this defense attorney off and on as he rambles on uncertain of street names, taking time to get himself familiar with his own pictures/diagrams etc. I hope there are others on the team. This guy doesn't seem to be getting it done at the moment.

 

[squistion]

For anyone wanting to follow a live stream of the trial, which should resume from lunch break in a few moments - here is a link.

http://abcnews.go.com/live

 

[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.

WTF

I didn't get it either. I've been watching this defense attorney off and on as he rambles on uncertain of street names, taking time to get himself familiar with his own pictures/diagrams etc. I hope there are others on the team. This guy doesn't seem to be getting it done at the moment.

He's certainly seemed bumbling at times, and made a few big mistakes IMO. But overall he's getting his central argument across: that Zimmerman was attempting to defend his life when he shot Trayvon Martin. I don't believe the defense is going to lose the case here for Zimmerman.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Sounds like the Judge is allowing the statments made by Zimmerman to the police and the neighbor to be used.. Looks like the defense is setting this up for a self defense claim through statments to police..

Yes. That contradicts what we learned earlier, and also means that I was wrong when I wrote that Zimmerman would almost certainly testify.

I still believe however that the defense's case without Zimmerman's direct testimony will be too weak to secure an acquittal. We'll see.

You mean, what you proclaimed earlier..

No, I didn't proclaim it. I think JoJo reported it from a blog, if I recall correctly.

You've been claiming that they couldn't enter a self defense claim without Zimmerman taking the stand.. And you've been claiming that consistantly throughout the thread regardless of what others have said..

 

[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.

You don't think the defense will point out that if Zimmerman was looking to kill Trayvon, he could have done it without a struggle?

I don't think the prosecution will go as far as to say that when Zimmerman got out of his car, his intent was to kill Martin. That would be premeditated. The defense can bring it up, but it would be monumentally stupid to use the "hey, he could have killed him without a struggle if he really wanted to" scenario, but what's the point if the prosecution doesn't go down that path themselves? The only thing that path accomplishes is reaffirming that he killed Martin.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The Zimmerman Joke was completely botched.. I can't believe he even attempted that.. Not only was it inappropriate, it was poorly delivered.. Wow..

I disagree. It accomplished exactly what he wanted.

Guy set the tone.

West lightened the mood (at his expense) but got a good reaction (laughter).

Not according to Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/24/prosecutors-defense-set-to-make-opening-statements-in-george-zimmerman-trial/?cmpid=cmty_twitter_fn

Don West followed with opening statements on behalf of Zimmerman, offering a knock-knock joke that fell flat before the stone-faced jurors.

"Who's there?" West said. "George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman who? Okay, good. You're on the jury."

Prior to the failed attempt at humor, West told a somber version of events, one that portrayed his client as a victim who acted to save his own life.

There was laughter after the joke was well over..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

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

I didn't get it either. I've been watching this defense attorney off and on as he rambles on uncertain of street names, taking time to get himself familiar with his own pictures/diagrams etc. I hope there are others on the team. This guy doesn't seem to be getting it done at the moment.

He's certainly seemed bumbling at times, and made a few big mistakes IMO. But overall he's getting his central argument across: that Zimmerman was attempting to defend his life when he shot Trayvon Martin. I don't believe the defense is going to lose the case here for Zimmerman.

Everything I've heard on news coverage suggests the defense has a lot to work with but doesn't seem to be doing well with what they have..

 

[squistion]

The Zimmerman Joke was completely botched.. I can't believe he even attempted that.. Not only was it inappropriate, it was poorly delivered.. Wow..

I disagree. It accomplished exactly what he wanted.

Guy set the tone.

West lightened the mood (at his expense) but got a good reaction (laughter).

Not according to Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/24/prosecutors-defense-set-to-make-opening-statements-in-george-zimmerman-trial/?cmpid=cmty_twitter_fn

Don West followed with opening statements on behalf of Zimmerman, offering a knock-knock joke that fell flat before the stone-faced jurors.

"Who's there?" West said. "George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman who? Okay, good. You're on the jury."

Prior to the failed attempt at humor, West told a somber version of events, one that portrayed his client as a victim who acted to save his own life.

There was laughter after the joke was well over..

Fox says the jury was not laughing.

Edited to add, in live stream West apologized for making the joke.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The Zimmerman Joke was completely botched.. I can't believe he even attempted that.. Not only was it inappropriate, it was poorly delivered.. Wow..

I disagree. It accomplished exactly what he wanted.

Guy set the tone.

West lightened the mood (at his expense) but got a good reaction (laughter).

Not according to Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/24/prosecutors-defense-set-to-make-opening-statements-in-george-zimmerman-trial/?cmpid=cmty_twitter_fn

Don West followed with opening statements on behalf of Zimmerman, offering a knock-knock joke that fell flat before the stone-faced jurors.

"Who's there?" West said. "George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman who? Okay, good. You're on the jury."

Prior to the failed attempt at humor, West told a somber version of events, one that portrayed his client as a victim who acted to save his own life.

There was laughter after the joke was well over..

Fox says the jury was not laughing.

Listen to it for yourself

 

[squistion]

The Zimmerman Joke was completely botched.. I can't believe he even attempted that.. Not only was it inappropriate, it was poorly delivered.. Wow..

I disagree. It accomplished exactly what he wanted.

Guy set the tone.

West lightened the mood (at his expense) but got a good reaction (laughter).

Not according to Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/24/prosecutors-defense-set-to-make-opening-statements-in-george-zimmerman-trial/?cmpid=cmty_twitter_fn

Don West followed with opening statements on behalf of Zimmerman, offering a knock-knock joke that fell flat before the stone-faced jurors.

"Who's there?" West said. "George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman who? Okay, good. You're on the jury."

Prior to the failed attempt at humor, West told a somber version of events, one that portrayed his client as a victim who acted to save his own life.

There was laughter after the joke was well over..

Fox says the jury was not laughing.

Listen to it for yourself

West just apologized facing the jury for making the joke.

 

[The Commish]

The Zimmerman Joke was completely botched.. I can't believe he even attempted that.. Not only was it inappropriate, it was poorly delivered.. Wow..

I disagree. It accomplished exactly what he wanted.

Guy set the tone.

West lightened the mood (at his expense) but got a good reaction (laughter).

Again....I recommend you DVR this. Your bias isn't allowing you to see reality. The court room was quiet. The guy even followed it up with a "wow, nothing? That was funny" type of line, still.....nothing. I don't have a dog in this fight. Perhaps you should take that position as well.

 

[jamny]

The Zimmerman Joke was completely botched.. I can't believe he even attempted that.. Not only was it inappropriate, it was poorly delivered.. Wow..

I disagree. It accomplished exactly what he wanted.

Guy set the tone.

West lightened the mood (at his expense) but got a good reaction (laughter).

Again....I recommend you DVR this. Your bias isn't allowing you to see reality. The court room was quiet. The guy even followed it up with a "wow, nothing? That was funny" type of line, still.....nothing. I don't have a dog in this fight. Perhaps you should take that position as well.

The bolded got more of a reaction than the attempted joke, which fell flat.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The Zimmerman Joke was completely botched.. I can't believe he even attempted that.. Not only was it inappropriate, it was poorly delivered.. Wow..

I disagree. It accomplished exactly what he wanted.

Guy set the tone.

West lightened the mood (at his expense) but got a good reaction (laughter).

Again....I recommend you DVR this. Your bias isn't allowing you to see reality. The court room was quiet. The guy even followed it up with a "wow, nothing? That was funny" type of line, still.....nothing. I don't have a dog in this fight. Perhaps you should take that position as well.

The bolded got more of a reaction than the attempted joke, which fell flat.

agreed

 

[Mark Davis]

Regardless of your stance on the case or even if you are an attorney for the defense, I can't imagine it's ever good to make jokes in a case in which someone ended up dead. You're claiming self-defense, but in that manner you want to appear sympathetic to the victim, at a minimum sorry for the circumstances that led to it occurring.

 

[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.

WTF

I didn't get it either. I've been watching this defense attorney off and on as he rambles on uncertain of street names, taking time to get himself familiar with his own pictures/diagrams etc. I hope there are others on the team. This guy doesn't seem to be getting it done at the moment.

He's certainly seemed bumbling at times, and made a few big mistakes IMO. But overall he's getting his central argument across: that Zimmerman was attempting to defend his life when he shot Trayvon Martin. I don't believe the defense is going to lose the case here for Zimmerman.

Everything I've heard on news coverage suggests the defense has a lot to work with but doesn't seem to be doing well with what they have..

I'd probably agree with this. Just doesn't seem to be going well and it doesn't help that Zimmerman is over there nodding off from time to time.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The Zimmerman Joke was completely botched.. I can't believe he even attempted that.. Not only was it inappropriate, it was poorly delivered.. Wow..

I disagree. It accomplished exactly what he wanted.

Guy set the tone.

West lightened the mood (at his expense) but got a good reaction (laughter).

Again....I recommend you DVR this. Your bias isn't allowing you to see reality. The court room was quiet. The guy even followed it up with a "wow, nothing? That was funny" type of line, still.....nothing. I don't have a dog in this fight. Perhaps you should take that position as well.

There was laughter after this line http://www.mediaite.com/tv/george-zimmerman-defense-follows-wrenching-prosecution-opening-with-knock-knock-joke/ 3.54 mark

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

The Zimmerman Joke was completely botched.. I can't believe he even attempted that.. Not only was it inappropriate, it was poorly delivered.. Wow..

I disagree. It accomplished exactly what he wanted.

Guy set the tone.

West lightened the mood (at his expense) but got a good reaction (laughter).

Not according to Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/24/prosecutors-defense-set-to-make-opening-statements-in-george-zimmerman-trial/?cmpid=cmty_twitter_fn

Don West followed with opening statements on behalf of Zimmerman, offering a knock-knock joke that fell flat before the stone-faced jurors.

"Who's there?" West said. "George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman who? Okay, good. You're on the jury."

Prior to the failed attempt at humor, West told a somber version of events, one that portrayed his client as a victim who acted to save his own life.

Nothing you posted contradicted what I said.

 

[pantherclub]

Zimmerman needed some coffee during all of that. Damn he didn't do himself any favors nodding off.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

The Zimmerman Joke was completely botched.. I can't believe he even attempted that.. Not only was it inappropriate, it was poorly delivered.. Wow..

I disagree. It accomplished exactly what he wanted.

Guy set the tone.

West lightened the mood (at his expense) but got a good reaction (laughter).

Again....I recommend you DVR this. Your bias isn't allowing you to see reality. The court room was quiet. The guy even followed it up with a "wow, nothing? That was funny" type of line, still.....nothing. I don't have a dog in this fight. Perhaps you should take that position as well.

Second time you have been clueless.

3:53 mark

There was laughter at West's expense. It accomplished exactly what he wanted, to lighten the mood. Laughter lightens the mood whether you are willing to admit it or not.