Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (1 Viewer)

[T Bell]

Good for you, judge- West is being really disrespectful here.

Objecting this strongly is part of the process in settting up the appeal, just in case Zimmerman is convicted.

Strongly objecting is no different than saying it once on the record for purposes of preservation for appeal.

"I strenuously object."

"Oh, you strenuously object? Well, then let me reconsider..."



Leeroy Jenkins is exactly right that the manner or tone of the objection has nothing to due with whether the issue was properly reserved for appeal. Instead, if a lawyer objects this hard, he either genuinely disagrees with the judge and wants to have it out with the judge or he's arguing that hard for show for his client.

There's some psychology involved. For example, if someone's going round and round with a witness asking the same or much the same question, I'll make my "asked and answered" objection sound extra bored/exasperated for effect.

But yeah, adding "strenuously" is stupid, and even more so after A Few Good Men.

 

[Zow]

Woz - you cannot adequately rule on if this judge has acted biased towards state or defense unless you have been watching this trial.

She's on record as saying Trayvon's text messages could not be authenticated even though they were stored behind two passwords since any 7 year old can get into "those things". West even pointed out FDLE couldn't crack his passwords over the course of 1 year.

I don't think she offered West a single side-bar the entire trial, if she did, she denied at least 90% of his requests. She denied West the opportunity to counsel his client when she decided to swear him in and put Zimmerman's answers on the record.

I don't have the objection/sustained count but I wouldn't be surprised if she sustained 2-3x as many state objections than she did defense objections.

All I'm saying is unless you have watched 75-80% of the trial like the rest of us you really shouldn't assume there is no bias going on.

:headexplode:

ETA: I bet you're the guy who goes to the doctor and explains to him that his diagnosis can't possibly be right.

 

[Zow]

My god the State is grasping for straws. It's embarrising.

Yea, it is pretty ridiculous going for this Felony Murder based on child abuse.

This is a stupid enough theory that it will even look desperate to some jurors such that they might then write off the entire prosecution case as a whole.

This is a fun law school hypothetical for a test, but it's a dumb thing to try in real life, and doubly so in a high profile case.

These motions were likely/should have been made outside the presence of the jury.

 

[T Bell]

My god the State is grasping for straws. It's embarrising.

Yea, it is pretty ridiculous going for this Felony Murder based on child abuse.

This is a stupid enough theory that it will even look desperate to some jurors such that they might then write off the entire prosecution case as a whole.

This is a fun law school hypothetical for a test, but it's a dumb thing to try in real life, and doubly so in a high profile case.

I don't think the jurors will ever hear about that.

I'm not watching the trial and I was assuming that they were arguing to the jury. Are they just arguing to the judge that they should have the right to argue it in closing?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

My god the State is grasping for straws. It's embarrising.

Yea, it is pretty ridiculous going for this Felony Murder based on child abuse.

This is a stupid enough theory that it will even look desperate to some jurors such that they might then write off the entire prosecution case as a whole.

This is a fun law school hypothetical for a test, but it's a dumb thing to try in real life, and doubly so in a high profile case.

I don't think the jurors will ever hear about that.

I'm not watching the trial and I was assuming that they were arguing to the jury. Are they just arguing to the judge that they should have the right to argue it in closing?

The State argued that it should be submitted to the jury as a charge. The State, quite understandably, lost.

 

[timschochet]

My god the State is grasping for straws. It's embarrising.

Yea, it is pretty ridiculous going for this Felony Murder based on child abuse.

This is a stupid enough theory that it will even look desperate to some jurors such that they might then write off the entire prosecution case as a whole.

This is a fun law school hypothetical for a test, but it's a dumb thing to try in real life, and doubly so in a high profile case.

I don't think the jurors will ever hear about that.

I'm not watching the trial and I was assuming that they were arguing to the jury. Are they just arguing to the judge that they should have the right to argue it in closing?

The prosecution requested it as one of their lesser charges. The judge denied it. The jury wasn't present.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

"Hey, I've watched at least 75% of this open heart surgery. I realize that you're a cardiac surgeon and that I got a D+ in college biology, but I'm clearly in a better position to assess the performance of the operating surgeon than you are."

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Woz - you cannot adequately rule on if this judge has acted biased towards state or defense unless you have been watching this trial.

She's on record as saying Trayvon's text messages could not be authenticated even though they were stored behind two passwords since any 7 year old can get into "those things". West even pointed out FDLE couldn't crack his passwords over the course of 1 year.

I don't think she offered West a single side-bar the entire trial, if she did, she denied at least 90% of his requests. She denied West the opportunity to counsel his client when she decided to swear him in and put Zimmerman's answers on the record.

I don't have the objection/sustained count but I wouldn't be surprised if she sustained 2-3x as many state objections than she did defense objections.

All I'm saying is unless you have watched 75-80% of the trial like the rest of us you really shouldn't assume there is no bias going on.

:headexplode:ETA: I bet you're the guy who goes to the doctor and explains to him that his diagnosis can't possibly be right.

Jesus

 

[greenroom]

i can't read this from beginning at this point...

i take it zimmerman followed martin because he looked "suspicious"...

did he ever characterize that specifically... was he looking in car or home windows, sneaking through back yards, etc?

It took Martin 46 minutes to walk .8 miles in the rain in 61 degree weather in Florida (low 60's in the rain is not the warm rain Floridians are used to), Zimmerman noted Martin was walking between houses and staring at them, looked like he was on drugs or something. Zimmerman said it didn't look like Martin was out exercising and he did not act how his neighbors act when they go outside to get their mail in the cold rain, he noted his neighbors typically don't want to stay out in that type of weather they jog or run to get their mail and to get back inside.

[SIZE=10.5pt]Zimmerman did not know that Martin took 46 minutes to walk .8 miles. In fact I am willing to bet Martin did not know he was out 46 minutes. And the reason why is it is not illegal to take your time chatting on the phone. He was walking around his father’s neighborhood which is a safe area to walk around in and where he was staying. At this point there is nothing that Martin has done that is illegal or out of the ordinary for someone in their teens. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Then you have someone who is following you then moves forward towards you. You lose him, only to run into him again, as a 17 year old you are scared of what this guy wants with you. We can debate what happens next and to be honest, there is nothing that anyone can say that can prove what took place. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]And for the reason why he did not just run home? Maybe he was in fear of Zimmerman. Just like you say that Zimmerman did not want to provide his address because Martin maybe there. Why cannot that also apply to Martin, Zimmerman who came up from nowhere and Martin felt he was in danger and did not want to put his family in danger as well? [/SIZE]

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

i can't read this from beginning at this point...

i take it zimmerman followed martin because he looked "suspicious"...

did he ever characterize that specifically... was he looking in car or home windows, sneaking through back yards, etc?

It took Martin 46 minutes to walk .8 miles in the rain in 61 degree weather in Florida (low 60's in the rain is not the warm rain Floridians are used to), Zimmerman noted Martin was walking between houses and staring at them, looked like he was on drugs or something. Zimmerman said it didn't look like Martin was out exercising and he did not act how his neighbors act when they go outside to get their mail in the cold rain, he noted his neighbors typically don't want to stay out in that type of weather they jog or run to get their mail and to get back inside.

Zimmerman did not know that Martin took 46 minutes to walk .8 miles. In fact I am willing to bet Martin did not know he was out 46 minutes. And the reason why is it is not illegal to take your time chatting on the phone. He was walking around his father’s neighborhood which is a safe area to walk around in and where he was staying. At this point there is nothing that Martin has done that is illegal or out of the ordinary for someone in their teens. Then you have someone who is following you then moves forward towards you. You lose him, only to run into him again, as a 17 year old you are scared of what this guy wants with you. We can debate what happens next and to be honest, there is nothing that anyone can say that can prove what took place.

And for the reason why he did not just run home? Maybe he was in fear of Zimmerman. Just like you say that Zimmerman did not want to provide his address because Martin maybe there. Why cannot that also apply to Martin, who came up from nowhere and Martin felt he was in danger and did not want to put his family in danger as well?

DiDi's testimony goes to show Martin was never in fear. She claims to have told him to run, and he replied "Nawww".

The 46 minute .8 miles goes to show the pace Martin was travelling at, it was suspicious to George Zimmerman, particularly when you add in the fact that M was walking BETWEEN houses and STARING at the houses - similar to someone casing a house. The fact that it was dark, 61 degrees and raining adds to the suspicious nature.

 

[Zow]

Woz - you cannot adequately rule on if this judge has acted biased towards state or defense unless you have been watching this trial.

She's on record as saying Trayvon's text messages could not be authenticated even though they were stored behind two passwords since any 7 year old can get into "those things". West even pointed out FDLE couldn't crack his passwords over the course of 1 year.

I don't think she offered West a single side-bar the entire trial, if she did, she denied at least 90% of his requests. She denied West the opportunity to counsel his client when she decided to swear him in and put Zimmerman's answers on the record.

I don't have the objection/sustained count but I wouldn't be surprised if she sustained 2-3x as many state objections than she did defense objections.

All I'm saying is unless you have watched 75-80% of the trial like the rest of us you really shouldn't assume there is no bias going on.

:headexplode:ETA: I bet you're the guy who goes to the doctor and explains to him that his diagnosis can't possibly be right.

Jesus

Look, I am not doubting that the judge may not personally like the defendant or his attorneys. After all, the defendant was an overzealous potential racist who followed a kid around with a gun. And I'm exhibit A of the fact that sometimes defense attorneys can rub people the wrong way.

But personal dislike is not judicial bias, not matter how you spin it. And for the judge to rule the way she has in favor of the defense on major, close legal issues means that she is not biased against the defense, no matter how you spin it.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

"Hey, I've watched at least 75% of this open heart surgery. I realize that you're a cardiac surgeon and that I got a D+ in college biology, but I'm clearly in a better position to assess the performance of the operating surgeon than you are."

Are you claiming you need a law degree to tell when someone is acting biased?

link 1

link 2

link 3

This was just from the first page of search results from Google. I'd expect there to be plenty of available articles written about her treatment of the defense after this trial is over.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

We really need a warning on the title of this thread for the lawyers.....you guys don't come in here expecting honest discussion. Minds are made up and have been since the trial began. Your attempts at logic will be resisted at all costs.

lol

 

[greenroom]

i can't read this from beginning at this point...

i take it zimmerman followed martin because he looked "suspicious"...

did he ever characterize that specifically... was he looking in car or home windows, sneaking through back yards, etc?

It took Martin 46 minutes to walk .8 miles in the rain in 61 degree weather in Florida (low 60's in the rain is not the warm rain Floridians are used to), Zimmerman noted Martin was walking between houses and staring at them, looked like he was on drugs or something. Zimmerman said it didn't look like Martin was out exercising and he did not act how his neighbors act when they go outside to get their mail in the cold rain, he noted his neighbors typically don't want to stay out in that type of weather they jog or run to get their mail and to get back inside.

Zimmerman did not know that Martin took 46 minutes to walk .8 miles. In fact I am willing to bet Martin did not know he was out 46 minutes. And the reason why is it is not illegal to take your time chatting on the phone. He was walking around his father’s neighborhood which is a safe area to walk around in and where he was staying. At this point there is nothing that Martin has done that is illegal or out of the ordinary for someone in their teens. Then you have someone who is following you then moves forward towards you. You lose him, only to run into him again, as a 17 year old you are scared of what this guy wants with you. We can debate what happens next and to be honest, there is nothing that anyone can say that can prove what took place.

And for the reason why he did not just run home? Maybe he was in fear of Zimmerman. Just like you say that Zimmerman did not want to provide his address because Martin maybe there. Why cannot that also apply to Martin, who came up from nowhere and Martin felt he was in danger and did not want to put his family in danger as well?

DiDi's testimony goes to show Martin was never in fear. She claims to have told him to run, and he replied "Nawww".

The 46 minute .8 miles goes to show the pace Martin was travelling at, it was suspicious to George Zimmerman, particularly when you add in the fact that M was walking BETWEEN houses and STARING at the houses - similar to someone casing a house. The fact that it was dark, 61 degrees and raining adds to the suspicious nature.

And my question to you if it was so suspicious, but not illegal.

Would be why Zimmerman did not yell towards Martin to see if everything was ok? Had he done that I have a feeling that we would not be 422 pages on a football message board. If he was a neighborhood watch, why not just ask the question from a distance to remove all the fear and at that point if Martin took off, then you can call the police, but odds are that Martin would of responded that he was fine, and then it could of opened up the conversation between the two.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Woz - you cannot adequately rule on if this judge has acted biased towards state or defense unless you have been watching this trial.

She's on record as saying Trayvon's text messages could not be authenticated even though they were stored behind two passwords since any 7 year old can get into "those things". West even pointed out FDLE couldn't crack his passwords over the course of 1 year.

I don't think she offered West a single side-bar the entire trial, if she did, she denied at least 90% of his requests. She denied West the opportunity to counsel his client when she decided to swear him in and put Zimmerman's answers on the record.

I don't have the objection/sustained count but I wouldn't be surprised if she sustained 2-3x as many state objections than she did defense objections.

All I'm saying is unless you have watched 75-80% of the trial like the rest of us you really shouldn't assume there is no bias going on.

Not any of this goes to judicial bias.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

"Hey, I've watched at least 75% of this open heart surgery. I realize that you're a cardiac surgeon and that I got a D+ in college biology, but I'm clearly in a better position to assess the performance of the operating surgeon than you are."

Are you claiming you need a law degree to tell when someone is acting biased?

link 1

link 1

link 3

I am claiming you need to understand a ruling applying the rules of evidence to understand whether that ruling was "biased." You clearly don't. You've consistently demonstrated that you don't. You don't need a degree. I firmly believe that most laypeople can read a statute or case law and correctly determine the rule of law stated.

But you've never attempted to do that. I don't know if you're too lazy to do so, too "biased" to do so, or (frankly) too stupid to do so. I don't know you. But I know from the evidence of this thread that you don't even attempt to understand the rulings you're objecting to.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

i can't read this from beginning at this point...

i take it zimmerman followed martin because he looked "suspicious"...

did he ever characterize that specifically... was he looking in car or home windows, sneaking through back yards, etc?

It took Martin 46 minutes to walk .8 miles in the rain in 61 degree weather in Florida (low 60's in the rain is not the warm rain Floridians are used to), Zimmerman noted Martin was walking between houses and staring at them, looked like he was on drugs or something. Zimmerman said it didn't look like Martin was out exercising and he did not act how his neighbors act when they go outside to get their mail in the cold rain, he noted his neighbors typically don't want to stay out in that type of weather they jog or run to get their mail and to get back inside.

Zimmerman did not know that Martin took 46 minutes to walk .8 miles. In fact I am willing to bet Martin did not know he was out 46 minutes. And the reason why is it is not illegal to take your time chatting on the phone. He was walking around his father’s neighborhood which is a safe area to walk around in and where he was staying. At this point there is nothing that Martin has done that is illegal or out of the ordinary for someone in their teens. Then you have someone who is following you then moves forward towards you. You lose him, only to run into him again, as a 17 year old you are scared of what this guy wants with you. We can debate what happens next and to be honest, there is nothing that anyone can say that can prove what took place.

And for the reason why he did not just run home? Maybe he was in fear of Zimmerman. Just like you say that Zimmerman did not want to provide his address because Martin maybe there. Why cannot that also apply to Martin, who came up from nowhere and Martin felt he was in danger and did not want to put his family in danger as well?

DiDi's testimony goes to show Martin was never in fear. She claims to have told him to run, and he replied "Nawww".

The 46 minute .8 miles goes to show the pace Martin was travelling at, it was suspicious to George Zimmerman, particularly when you add in the fact that M was walking BETWEEN houses and STARING at the houses - similar to someone casing a house. The fact that it was dark, 61 degrees and raining adds to the suspicious nature.

And my question to you if it was so suspicious, but not illegal.Would be why Zimmerman did not yell towards Martin to see if everything was ok? Had he done that I have a feeling that we would not be 422 pages on a football message board. If he was a neighborhood watch, why not just ask the question from a distance to remove all the fear and at that point if Martin took off, then you can call the police, but odds are that Martin would of responded that he was fine, and then it could of opened up the conversation between the two.

That would be a confrontation, stop using hind sight as your argument. If Martin had walked home we wouldn't be here today either, it's a ludicrous line to take in this case.

 

[greenroom]

i can't read this from beginning at this point...

i take it zimmerman followed martin because he looked "suspicious"...

did he ever characterize that specifically... was he looking in car or home windows, sneaking through back yards, etc?

It took Martin 46 minutes to walk .8 miles in the rain in 61 degree weather in Florida (low 60's in the rain is not the warm rain Floridians are used to), Zimmerman noted Martin was walking between houses and staring at them, looked like he was on drugs or something. Zimmerman said it didn't look like Martin was out exercising and he did not act how his neighbors act when they go outside to get their mail in the cold rain, he noted his neighbors typically don't want to stay out in that type of weather they jog or run to get their mail and to get back inside.

Zimmerman did not know that Martin took 46 minutes to walk .8 miles. In fact I am willing to bet Martin did not know he was out 46 minutes. And the reason why is it is not illegal to take your time chatting on the phone. He was walking around his father’s neighborhood which is a safe area to walk around in and where he was staying. At this point there is nothing that Martin has done that is illegal or out of the ordinary for someone in their teens. Then you have someone who is following you then moves forward towards you. You lose him, only to run into him again, as a 17 year old you are scared of what this guy wants with you. We can debate what happens next and to be honest, there is nothing that anyone can say that can prove what took place.

And for the reason why he did not just run home? Maybe he was in fear of Zimmerman. Just like you say that Zimmerman did not want to provide his address because Martin maybe there. Why cannot that also apply to Martin, who came up from nowhere and Martin felt he was in danger and did not want to put his family in danger as well?

DiDi's testimony goes to show Martin was never in fear. She claims to have told him to run, and he replied "Nawww".

The 46 minute .8 miles goes to show the pace Martin was travelling at, it was suspicious to George Zimmerman, particularly when you add in the fact that M was walking BETWEEN houses and STARING at the houses - similar to someone casing a house. The fact that it was dark, 61 degrees and raining adds to the suspicious nature.

And my question to you if it was so suspicious, but not illegal.Would be why Zimmerman did not yell towards Martin to see if everything was ok? Had he done that I have a feeling that we would not be 422 pages on a football message board. If he was a neighborhood watch, why not just ask the question from a distance to remove all the fear and at that point if Martin took off, then you can call the police, but odds are that Martin would of responded that he was fine, and then it could of opened up the conversation between the two.

That would be a confrontation, stop using hind sight as your argument. If Martin had walked home we wouldn't be here today either, it's a ludicrous line to take in this case.

If Zimmerman had continued with his trip we would not be here. Maybe it me, but the common sense approach of asking questions of a kid in your neighborhood has not gotten my nose broken and I have not killed a kid. Communication is not a confrontation. I know it goes against your logic of just blame everything on Martin, and it was 100% his responsability to make sure Zimmerman did not kill him.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

You'll notice the transcript of the 911 call didn't mention the farting at all. That's because at the time Zimmerman placed the call, the farting hadn't even happened yet.

 

[parasaurolophus]

i can't read this from beginning at this point...

i take it zimmerman followed martin because he looked "suspicious"...

did he ever characterize that specifically... was he looking in car or home windows, sneaking through back yards, etc?

Martin was a young black male wearing a hoodie and walking slowly in the rain. It's called racial profiling and it happens every day in this country.

Martin was basically a stranger in a gated area. He was wandering around at night in the rain. GZ thought he looked like he was on drugs(he pegged it pretty good). Its called spotting something out of place and suspicious. It happens every day.

 

[The Commish]

My god the State is grasping for straws. It's embarrising.

Yea, it is pretty ridiculous going for this Felony Murder based on child abuse.

This is a stupid enough theory that it will even look desperate to some jurors such that they might then write off the entire prosecution case as a whole.

This is a fun law school hypothetical for a test, but it's a dumb thing to try in real life, and doubly so in a high profile case.

Jurors aren't going to see it. It's been taken off the instructions.

 

[The Commish]

Good for you, judge- West is being really disrespectful here.

Objecting this strongly is part of the process in settting up the appeal, just in case Zimmerman is convicted.

Strongly objecting is no different than saying it once on the record for purposes of preservation for appeal.

"I strenuously object."

"Oh, you strenuously object? Well, then let me reconsider..."



Leeroy Jenkins is exactly right that the manner or tone of the objection has nothing to due with whether the issue was properly reserved for appeal. Instead, if a lawyer objects this hard, he either genuinely disagrees with the judge and wants to have it out with the judge or he's arguing that hard for show for his client.

There's some psychology involved. For example, if someone's going round and round with a witness asking the same or much the same question, I'll make my "asked and answered" objection sound extra bored/exasperated for effect.

But yeah, adding "strenuously" is stupid, and even more so after A Few Good Men.

Does it matter if the jury isn't there? Who are you effecting with that tone of voice?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

"Hey, I've watched at least 75% of this open heart surgery. I realize that you're a cardiac surgeon and that I got a D+ in college biology, but I'm clearly in a better position to assess the performance of the operating surgeon than you are."

Are you claiming you need a law degree to tell when someone is acting biased?

link 1

link 1

link 3

I am claiming you need to understand a ruling applying the rules of evidence to understand whether that ruling was "biased." You clearly don't. You've consistently demonstrated that you don't. You don't need a degree. I firmly believe that most laypeople can read a statute or case law and correctly determine the rule of law stated.

But you've never attempted to do that. I don't know if you're too lazy to do so, too "biased" to do so, or (frankly) too stupid to do so. I don't know you. But I know from the evidence of this thread that you don't even attempt to understand the rulings you're objecting to.

I don't need a law degree to determine if a Judge's attitude, actions, words, or demeanor is biased, do you disagree? By actions I'm talking about denying Don West a side bar nearly every time he has requested, conversely she has allowed every side bar requested by the State how is that not biased? Is there some "law school education" I'm missing here that makes you a better judge of observing this bias?

 

[The Commish]

"Hey, I've watched at least 75% of this open heart surgery. I realize that you're a cardiac surgeon and that I got a D+ in college biology, but I'm clearly in a better position to assess the performance of the operating surgeon than you are."

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

My god the State is grasping for straws. It's embarrising.

Yea, it is pretty ridiculous going for this Felony Murder based on child abuse.

This is a stupid enough theory that it will even look desperate to some jurors such that they might then write off the entire prosecution case as a whole.

This is a fun law school hypothetical for a test, but it's a dumb thing to try in real life, and doubly so in a high profile case.

Well, the jury wasn't present for any of that and it was not allowed.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

"Hey, I've watched at least 75% of this open heart surgery. I realize that you're a cardiac surgeon and that I got a D+ in college biology, but I'm clearly in a better position to assess the performance of the operating surgeon than you are."

Are you claiming you need a law degree to tell when someone is acting biased?

link 1

link 1

link 3

I am claiming you need to understand a ruling applying the rules of evidence to understand whether that ruling was "biased." You clearly don't. You've consistently demonstrated that you don't. You don't need a degree. I firmly believe that most laypeople can read a statute or case law and correctly determine the rule of law stated.

But you've never attempted to do that. I don't know if you're too lazy to do so, too "biased" to do so, or (frankly) too stupid to do so. I don't know you. But I know from the evidence of this thread that you don't even attempt to understand the rulings you're objecting to.

HEARSAY!!!@@@!!!!!@!@@!

 

[T Bell]

Good for you, judge- West is being really disrespectful here.

Objecting this strongly is part of the process in settting up the appeal, just in case Zimmerman is convicted.

Strongly objecting is no different than saying it once on the record for purposes of preservation for appeal.

"I strenuously object."

"Oh, you strenuously object? Well, then let me reconsider..."



Leeroy Jenkins is exactly right that the manner or tone of the objection has nothing to due with whether the issue was properly reserved for appeal. Instead, if a lawyer objects this hard, he either genuinely disagrees with the judge and wants to have it out with the judge or he's arguing that hard for show for his client.

There's some psychology involved. For example, if someone's going round and round with a witness asking the same or much the same question, I'll make my "asked and answered" objection sound extra bored/exasperated for effect.

But yeah, adding "strenuously" is stupid, and even more so after A Few Good Men.

Does it matter if the jury isn't there? Who are you effecting with that tone of voice?

I was assuming the jury was present, however judges are people too, are are subject to the same sorts of psychological influence that anyone else is.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

"Hey, I've watched at least 75% of this open heart surgery. I realize that you're a cardiac surgeon and that I got a D+ in college biology, but I'm clearly in a better position to assess the performance of the operating surgeon than you are."

Are you claiming you need a law degree to tell when someone is acting biased?

link 1

link 1

link 3

I am claiming you need to understand a ruling applying the rules of evidence to understand whether that ruling was "biased." You clearly don't. You've consistently demonstrated that you don't. You don't need a degree. I firmly believe that most laypeople can read a statute or case law and correctly determine the rule of law stated.

But you've never attempted to do that. I don't know if you're too lazy to do so, too "biased" to do so, or (frankly) too stupid to do so. I don't know you. But I know from the evidence of this thread that you don't even attempt to understand the rulings you're objecting to.

I don't need a law degree to determine if a Judge's attitude, actions, words, or demeanor is biased, do you disagree? By actions I'm talking about denying Don West a side bar nearly every time he has requested, conversely she has allowed every side bar requested by the State how is that not biased? Is there some "law school education" I'm missing here that makes you a better judge of observing this bias?

The merits of the request could matter here. Maybe.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Both guys are on the phone right before the incident takes place. One is talking with the police and the other with Didi. GZ is asking for the police to come while TM says "Nahhhh" to Didi when she says to run away.

If TM was calling the police about Being followed and GZ was telling a friend he wasn't going to flee, I would totally believe GZ was looking for the fight and should probably be convicted.

 

[The Commish]

I blocked JoJo 3 weeks ago. Why are people still replying to that guy?

They aren't, other than to tell him he's clueless or doesn't know what he's talking about. You're missing a real show though. You've short changed yourself by blocking him.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Finally the state is bringing up all the points so many of us that believe Zimmerman caused this event to unfold ...its about time

 

[Todem]

I've said before I think this case deserves a not guilty verdict but it still doesn't sit well with me when you take a step back.

A 29yo man who is fed up with suspicious characters follows a 17yo black kid in the rain at night. Does he follow a white kid? Does he follow anybody at all if he doesn't have a gun? A fight ensues for some mysterious reason. Likely TM started it but there was some guy following him in the rain at night, saying who knows what. How would you react? Fistfights like that happen every day. But GZ has a gun and shoots the kid dead. An extreme result when there must have been other options to end the fight. Just doesn't seem right if GZ sees no jail time at all. The lesser charge has a chance IMO.

Again we don't know what happened.

But let's assume GZ said hey kid who are you..what are you doing here. And instead of running away (assuming TM was trying to lose GZ) wouldn't a smart kid say...hey My name is Trayvon....My parents live in the neighborhood...just walking home..went to the store to get some snacks....cool?

But that is not what happened. We don't know what happened. All we know is a fight happened....an eyewitness saw TM on top of GZ...raining down blows.

Mans fears for his life...shoots to kill as any man who has a legal firearm should do if they fear for their life.

I am sorry......but that is all we really know. And I have watched this thing.

That sticks out to me like a sore thumb. Forget what we assume, presume or think about either person.....it is about...did GZ fear for his life and defend himself.

The State has not proved anything in the way of murder.

Nothing.

 

[The Commish]

What were the toxicology reports on Martin? I know there was a positive of something, was it pot and how high were his levels?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I blocked JoJo 3 weeks ago. Why are people still replying to that guy?

They aren't, other than to tell him he's clueless or doesn't know what he's talking about. You're missing a real show though. You've short changed yourself by blocking him.

He is quite entertaining if nothing else

 

[The Commish]

Finally the state is bringing up all the points so many of us that believe Zimmerman caused this event to unfold ...its about time

Yeah...I don't get why they weren't planting this seed throughout the trial. Is this a standard approach?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

What were the toxicology reports on Martin? I know there was a positive of something, was it pot and how high were his levels?

so low that it wasnt even worth bringing up during the trial

 

[The Commish]

What were the toxicology reports on Martin? I know there was a positive of something, was it pot and how high were his levels?

so low that it wasnt even worth bringing up during the trial

You have the numbers? And was it pot?

 

[The Commish]

hahahahaha...holy crap....he's on to my "how many freakin' hand did martin have" argument that no one here wanted to talk about.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

What were the toxicology reports on Martin? I know there was a positive of something, was it pot and how high were his levels?

so low that it wasnt even worth bringing up during the trial

You have the numbers? And was it pot?

The relevant part was 1.5 ng/ml of THC.I'm kind of surprised the 7-11 lighter was never brought up. You need to be 18 years old to buy a lighter in Florida.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

What were the toxicology reports on Martin? I know there was a positive of something, was it pot and how high were his levels?

Small amounts of pot, which could be from a few days before the shooting.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

What were the toxicology reports on Martin? I know there was a positive of something, was it pot and how high were his levels?

so low that it wasnt even worth bringing up during the trial

You have the numbers? And was it pot?

i posted this pages ago......'' The levels of THC detected don’t reflect Martin’s character or even his state of mind the night he was shot. For one, they are so low as to almost certainly not be connected to recent intoxication: 1.5 nanograms of THC were found as well as 7.3 nanograms of THC-COOH, a metabolite of THC that can stay in the system for weeks after cannabis has been smoked. Immediately after inhaling, THC levels typically rise to 100 to 200 nanograms per milliter of blood''

Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2012/05/18/traces-of-marijuana-found-in-trayvon-martins-body-does-it-matter-2/#ixzz2YleGK34G

 

[avoiding injuries]

What were the toxicology reports on Martin? I know there was a positive of something, was it pot and how high were his levels?

so low that it wasnt even worth bringing up during the trial

Or they were tried to be brought up and the court didnt allow it. Whichever sounds better.

 

[T Bell]

What were the toxicology reports on Martin? I know there was a positive of something, was it pot and how high were his levels?

so low that it wasnt even worth bringing up during the trial

You have the numbers? And was it pot?

The relevant part was 1.5 ng/ml of THC.I'm kind of surprised the 7-11 lighter was never brought up. You need to be 18 years old to buy a lighter in Florida.

Do you need to be 18 to possess a lighter, or just to buy it?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

What were the toxicology reports on Martin? I know there was a positive of something, was it pot and how high were his levels?

Small amounts of pot, which could be from a few days before the shooting.

That's not true, you are referring to the other THC measurement (forget the proper name) which could have been measured from up to 30 days, the primary THC reading was determined to be from the previous few hours that day.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

What were the toxicology reports on Martin? I know there was a positive of something, was it pot and how high were his levels?

so low that it wasnt even worth bringing up during the trial

Or they were tried to be brought up and the court didnt allow it. Whichever sounds better.

actually the defense won that and decided not to bring iot up...why ? i have no idea...maybe they will in the closing

 

[ArbyMelt]

Finally the state is bringing up all the points so many of us that believe Zimmerman caused this event to unfold ...its about time

They are bringing up possiblities and casting doubt on the defense theories, no hard affirmative evidence of manslaughter or 2nd degree murder.

 

[financewonk]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/11/CNN-white-hispanic

 

[T Bell]

What were the toxicology reports on Martin? I know there was a positive of something, was it pot and how high were his levels?

so low that it wasnt even worth bringing up during the trial

Or they were tried to be brought up and the court didnt allow it. Whichever sounds better.

actually the defense won that and decided not to bring iot up...why ? i have no idea...maybe they will in the closing

They can't mention in closing what wasn't brought into evidence during testimony.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Finally the state is bringing up all the points so many of us that believe Zimmerman caused this event to unfold ...its about time

They are bringing up possiblities and casting doubt on the defense theories, no hard affirmative evidence of manslaughter or 2nd degree murder.

they are poking holes in Zimmys own story...that in itself raises doubt in HIM

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

What were the toxicology reports on Martin? I know there was a positive of something, was it pot and how high were his levels?

so low that it wasnt even worth bringing up during the trial

Or they were tried to be brought up and the court didnt allow it. Whichever sounds better.

actually the defense won that and decided not to bring iot up...why ? i have no idea...maybe they will in the closing

Yeah I thought that was odd, maybe they will.