Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (3 Viewers)

[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?

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

I know a little something about the drug tests....15ng/ml is equivlent to you smoking a few hits last weekend at a party and now a week later later have to test. Did the defense try to suggest this 1.5 was significant in any way?

 

[Todem]

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

I watched a toxicology expert on Anderson Cooper I believe a few nights ago and said it was nothing that would suggest he was high as a kite, It is a small amount. It could have been from smoking a few days a go...a week ago.

It was nothing that would be effective for the defense to suggest Martin was high. And of course....pot is not something that makes someone violent. LOL.

I also feel when people are under a ton of duress...which GZ appeared to have been....it is very hard to recall all details of what happened. Especially when you in a fight...on the ground...getting wailed on....things happen so fast.

The closing arguments are all again.....presumptive. Nothing has been proven.

And here we go......racial profiling being used...a boy with skittles with a hoodie (and we know what word he just used).....that is all they have had and all they have pounded the table on. GZ is a racist.....was looking for trouble and killed a boy.

This is the foundation of the case....and why riots will ensue upon a not guilty verdict.

Sad. It is all just sad. Everything about the case.

And in the end.....a young mans life is gone. And it was senseless. No question. But was it malicous? Was it intended? Was it Murder 2?

No. I can't see it. I did not hear anything to suggest it from any of the witnesses.

 

[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

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

I wouldnt know that one way or the other....all i know is they could have brought it up and decided not to

 

[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

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

Not true, Defense is going to be showing an animation in their closing which was not brought up during trial.

 

[Phil Elliott]

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

Don't disagree, but don't they still need to "prove/show evidence" of what DID happen?

 

[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.

Not true, Defense is going to be showing an animation in their closing which was not brought up during trial.

Evidence, nimrod. The animation must be based upon evidence presented at trial. If that animation or any lawyer attempts to mention evidence that was not admitted, that judge is going to be up their ### in a heartbeat.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

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

Don't disagree, but don't they still need to "prove/show evidence" of what DID happen?

The biggest piece of evidence that manslaughter occurred by GZ is the fact that Trayvon is dead and GZ admits to having shot him.

 

[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

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.

They can put up power points and the like to illustrate the evidence that was brought up though, right?

 

[Lutherman2112]

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

 

[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

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

Not true, Defense is going to be showing an animation in their closing which was not brought up during trial.

Evidence, nimrod. The animation must be based upon evidence presented at trial. If that animation or any lawyer attempts to mention evidence that was not admitted, that judge is going to be up their ### in a heartbeat.

Real mature tinker. Animation = Evidence that cannot be reviewed by the jury.

 

[The Commish]

I've never been a big fan of lawyers in general, but I am very appreciative of you guys in this thread...it's awesome. I think I may be changing my opinion on you guys...you're all right

 

[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.

They can put up power points and the like to illustrate the evidence that was brought up though, right?

Correct, and they're allowed to argue what (they think) it means within the legal bounds that the court has defined, including in the recent rulings about felony murder, etc.

 

[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

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.

They can put up power points and the like to illustrate the evidence that was brought up though, right?

Correct, and they're allowed to argue what (they think) it means within the legal bounds that the court has defined, including in the recent rulings about felony murder, etc.

Ok...thanks!

 

[Todem]

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

Don't disagree, but don't they still need to "prove/show evidence" of what DID happen?

The biggest piece of evidence that manslaughter occurred by GZ is the fact that Trayvon is dead and GZ admits to having shot him.

The fact that he claimed self defense....and IMO the absolute key witness who saw TM on top of GZ raining down blows....kills the prosocutions case of Murder 2.

Yeah we all know he did it.

It's the why that needs to be clearly explained. And the evidence that has been presented by both sides....point to self defense.

Unless you just think GZ is a pure liar. If that is the case....prove it.

It wasn't.

 

[T Bell]

I've never been a big fan of lawyers in general, but I am very appreciative of you guys in this thread...it's awesome. I think I may be changing my opinion on you guys...you're all right

It's a misunderstood profession by many, and it attracts a lot of Type A's, including many who probably shouldn't be entrusted with the responsibility that it has. Still, it serves its purpose and as in most walks of life there are many in this profession who try to do their work honestly and forthrightly.

I'd liken it to journalists in this regard - necessary pains in the ###.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I've never been a big fan of lawyers in general, but I am very appreciative of you guys in this thread...it's awesome. I think I may be changing my opinion on you guys...you're all right

Agreed...although Christo could use a little work on his approach lol

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I've never been a big fan of lawyers in general, but I am very appreciative of you guys in this thread...it's awesome. I think I may be changing my opinion on you guys...you're all right

Until you get sued. Then we all suck again. We know.

 

[Phil Elliott]

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

Don't disagree, but don't they still need to "prove/show evidence" of what DID happen?

The biggest piece of evidence that manslaughter occurred by GZ is the fact that Trayvon is dead and GZ admits to having shot him.

But it seems to keep coming back to "self defense" at the time of the struggle.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

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

Don't disagree, but don't they still need to "prove/show evidence" of what DID happen?

The biggest piece of evidence that manslaughter occurred by GZ is the fact that Trayvon is dead and GZ admits to having shot him.

But it seems to keep coming back to "self defense" at the time of the struggle.

Which is why they are attacking GZ's story and creditability.

 

[Joe McGee]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=JConbBhngPM

At roughly the 3 minute mark, they say that the judge has come down on the side of the prosecution 95% of the time. I haven't viewed all of her rulings, but it's not a stretch for people to believe the judge is biased for the State. She had a reputation as a very pro-prosecution judge before she came into this trial and she hasn't disappointed.

The defense got rid of one judge for bias and they received a worse judge. I imagine there is some pretty strong political pressure being applied to this case behind the scenes.

 

[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

Don't disagree, but don't they still need to "prove/show evidence" of what DID happen?

The biggest piece of evidence that manslaughter occurred by GZ is the fact that Trayvon is dead and GZ admits to having shot him.

But it seems to keep coming back to "self defense" at the time of the struggle.

But again...if Zimmy is proven to be a liar then it could have been Treyvon was in self defense mode

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=JConbBhngPM

At roughly the 3 minute mark, they say that the judge has come down on the side of the prosecution 95% of the time. I haven't viewed all of her rulings, but it's not a stretch for people to believe the judge is biased for the State. She had a reputation as a very pro-prosecution judge before she came into this trial and she hasn't disappointed.

The defense got rid of one judge for bias and they received a worse judge. I imagine there is some pretty strong political pressure being applied to this case behind the scenes.

What do the backseat lawyers just entering the thread on the last ####### days of the trial of which they have not watched even 5% of it say now?

:crickets:

 

[Phil Elliott]

I've never been a big fan of lawyers in general, but I am very appreciative of you guys in this thread...it's awesome. I think I may be changing my opinion on you guys...you're all right

Especially after I served on a jury.

 

[Phil Elliott]

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

Don't disagree, but don't they still need to "prove/show evidence" of what DID happen?

The biggest piece of evidence that manslaughter occurred by GZ is the fact that Trayvon is dead and GZ admits to having shot him.

But it seems to keep coming back to "self defense" at the time of the struggle.

But again...if Zimmy is proven to be a liar then it could have been Treyvon was in self defense mode

Maybe.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=JConbBhngPM

At roughly the 3 minute mark, they say that the judge has come down on the side of the prosecution 95% of the time. I haven't viewed all of her rulings, but it's not a stretch for people to believe the judge is biased for the State. She had a reputation as a very pro-prosecution judge before she came into this trial and she hasn't disappointed.

The defense got rid of one judge for bias and they received a worse judge. I imagine there is some pretty strong political pressure being applied to this case behind the scenes.

What do the backseat lawyers just entering the thread on the last ####### days of the trial of which they have not watched even 5% of it say now?

:crickets:

If somebody is wrong 95% of the time that doesn't mean there is bias. Also, defense attorneys object to preserve certain things for appeal rather than just their immediate impact on the trial (although that obviously is happening as well). You;d have to look at them individually for their merits.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=JConbBhngPM

At roughly the 3 minute mark, they say that the judge has come down on the side of the prosecution 95% of the time. I haven't viewed all of her rulings, but it's not a stretch for people to believe the judge is biased for the State. She had a reputation as a very pro-prosecution judge before she came into this trial and she hasn't disappointed.

The defense got rid of one judge for bias and they received a worse judge. I imagine there is some pretty strong political pressure being applied to this case behind the scenes.

What do the backseat lawyers just entering the thread on the last ####### days of the trial of which they have not watched even 5% of it say now?

:crickets:

If somebody is wrong 95% of the time that doesn't mean there is bias. Also, defense attorneys object to preserve certain things for appeal rather than just their immediate impact on the trial (although that obviously is happening as well). You;d have to look at them individually for their merits.

How can denying a lawyer a sidebar 90-95% of the time (specifically when West has requested them) be considered anything other than biased when the judge allows nearly all sidebar requests from the prosecution? That isn't even a ruling, it is normal legal process or whatever the technical term is.

 

[The Commish]

Someone earlier mentioned a theory where they thought that the whole thing "started" because Martin punched Zimmerman because he was reaching into his pocket. I can see that after rewatching Zimmerman's re-enactment. I had missed that potential scenario before.

 

[The Commish]

I've never been a big fan of lawyers in general, but I am very appreciative of you guys in this thread...it's awesome. I think I may be changing my opinion on you guys...you're all right

Until you get sued. Then we all suck again. We know.

I'd just hire one of you guys....problem solved

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=JConbBhngPM

At roughly the 3 minute mark, they say that the judge has come down on the side of the prosecution 95% of the time. I haven't viewed all of her rulings, but it's not a stretch for people to believe the judge is biased for the State. She had a reputation as a very pro-prosecution judge before she came into this trial and she hasn't disappointed.

The defense got rid of one judge for bias and they received a worse judge. I imagine there is some pretty strong political pressure being applied to this case behind the scenes.

What do the backseat lawyers just entering the thread on the last ####### days of the trial of which they have not watched even 5% of it say now?

:crickets:

If somebody is wrong 95% of the time that doesn't mean there is bias. Also, defense attorneys object to preserve certain things for appeal rather than just their immediate impact on the trial (although that obviously is happening as well). You;d have to look at them individually for their merits.

How can denying a lawyer a sidebar 90-95% of the time (specifically when West has requested them) be considered anything other than biased when the judge allows nearly all sidebar requests from the prosecution? That isn't even a ruling, it is normal legal process or whatever the technical term is.

First, lets see the actual statistics rather than a FOX News contributor making statements for entertainment purposes. Secondly, what are you even talking about?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=JConbBhngPM

At roughly the 3 minute mark, they say that the judge has come down on the side of the prosecution 95% of the time. I haven't viewed all of her rulings, but it's not a stretch for people to believe the judge is biased for the State. She had a reputation as a very pro-prosecution judge before she came into this trial and she hasn't disappointed.

The defense got rid of one judge for bias and they received a worse judge. I imagine there is some pretty strong political pressure being applied to this case behind the scenes.

What do the backseat lawyers just entering the thread on the last ####### days of the trial of which they have not watched even 5% of it say now?

:crickets:

The exact same thing we have been saying. You don't judge bias based upon how many calls go either way. The two sides in a criminal prosecution are not the judge's children. There's no principle where they both get ice cream if one gets ice cream. A judge rules on the legal question presented, and it is absolutely impossible to assess the bias inherent in any ruling simply by stating who the ruling favored.

That you would equate the granting of a freaking sidebar conference with substantive questions on jury instructions just illustrates how much you don't understand about this.

 

[JShare87]

Guy just said the sprinkler box maybe caused some of those injuries. I'm pretty sure you could smash your head on one of those as hard as you want and it wouldn't cut your head.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=JConbBhngPM

At roughly the 3 minute mark, they say that the judge has come down on the side of the prosecution 95% of the time. I haven't viewed all of her rulings, but it's not a stretch for people to believe the judge is biased for the State. She had a reputation as a very pro-prosecution judge before she came into this trial and she hasn't disappointed.

The defense got rid of one judge for bias and they received a worse judge. I imagine there is some pretty strong political pressure being applied to this case behind the scenes.

What do the backseat lawyers just entering the thread on the last ####### days of the trial of which they have not watched even 5% of it say now?

:crickets:

The exact same thing we have been saying. You don't judge bias based upon how many calls go either way. The two sides in a criminal prosecution are not the judge's children. There's no principle where they both get ice cream if one gets ice cream. A judge rules on the legal question presented, and it is absolutely impossible to assess the bias inherent in any ruling simply by stating who the ruling favored.

That you would equate the granting of a freaking sidebar conference with substantive questions on jury instructions just illustrates how much you don't understand about this.

How many hours of this trial have you watched?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=JConbBhngPM

At roughly the 3 minute mark, they say that the judge has come down on the side of the prosecution 95% of the time. I haven't viewed all of her rulings, but it's not a stretch for people to believe the judge is biased for the State. She had a reputation as a very pro-prosecution judge before she came into this trial and she hasn't disappointed.

The defense got rid of one judge for bias and they received a worse judge. I imagine there is some pretty strong political pressure being applied to this case behind the scenes.

What do the backseat lawyers just entering the thread on the last ####### days of the trial of which they have not watched even 5% of it say now?

:crickets:

If somebody is wrong 95% of the time that doesn't mean there is bias. Also, defense attorneys object to preserve certain things for appeal rather than just their immediate impact on the trial (although that obviously is happening as well). You;d have to look at them individually for their merits.

How can denying a lawyer a sidebar 90-95% of the time (specifically when West has requested them) be considered anything other than biased when the judge allows nearly all sidebar requests from the prosecution? That isn't even a ruling, it is normal legal process or whatever the technical term is.

First, lets see the actual statistics rather than a FOX News contributor making statements for entertainment purposes. Secondly, what are you even talking about?

Don West has requested to approach the bench a number of times, Judge Nelson has denied nearly all of his requests.

BDLR and his team have made similar requests and very rarely has the Judge denied a side bar.

 

[RCon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=JConbBhngPM

At roughly the 3 minute mark, they say that the judge has come down on the side of the prosecution 95% of the time. I haven't viewed all of her rulings, but it's not a stretch for people to believe the judge is biased for the State. She had a reputation as a very pro-prosecution judge before she came into this trial and she hasn't disappointed.

The defense got rid of one judge for bias and they received a worse judge. I imagine there is some pretty strong political pressure being applied to this case behind the scenes.

What do the backseat lawyers just entering the thread on the last ####### days of the trial of which they have not watched even 5% of it say now?

:crickets:

The exact same thing we have been saying. You don't judge bias based upon how many calls go either way. The two sides in a criminal prosecution are not the judge's children. There's no principle where they both get ice cream if one gets ice cream. A judge rules on the legal question presented, and it is absolutely impossible to assess the bias inherent in any ruling simply by stating who the ruling favored.

That you would equate the granting of a freaking sidebar conference with substantive questions on jury instructions just illustrates how much you don't understand about this.

Are you sure about that one? I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be fair for the judge to order ice cream delivery just for one side.

 

[The Commish]

Guy just said the sprinkler box maybe caused some of those injuries. I'm pretty sure you could smash your head on one of those as hard as you want and it wouldn't cut your head.

Not that it has anything to do with the case, but I've jacked up metal aerator tines on sprinkler covers that are buried in the grass many times. I'd be willing to take that bet with you.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=JConbBhngPM

At roughly the 3 minute mark, they say that the judge has come down on the side of the prosecution 95% of the time. I haven't viewed all of her rulings, but it's not a stretch for people to believe the judge is biased for the State. She had a reputation as a very pro-prosecution judge before she came into this trial and she hasn't disappointed.

The defense got rid of one judge for bias and they received a worse judge. I imagine there is some pretty strong political pressure being applied to this case behind the scenes.

What do the backseat lawyers just entering the thread on the last ####### days of the trial of which they have not watched even 5% of it say now?

:crickets:

If somebody is wrong 95% of the time that doesn't mean there is bias. Also, defense attorneys object to preserve certain things for appeal rather than just their immediate impact on the trial (although that obviously is happening as well). You;d have to look at them individually for their merits.

How can denying a lawyer a sidebar 90-95% of the time (specifically when West has requested them) be considered anything other than biased when the judge allows nearly all sidebar requests from the prosecution? That isn't even a ruling, it is normal legal process or whatever the technical term is.

First, lets see the actual statistics rather than a FOX News contributor making statements for entertainment purposes. Secondly, what are you even talking about?

Don West has requested to approach the bench a number of times, Judge Nelson has denied nearly all of his requests.

BDLR and his team have made similar requests and very rarely has the Judge denied a side bar.

So? What do you think they are doing at sidebar?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=JConbBhngPM

At roughly the 3 minute mark, they say that the judge has come down on the side of the prosecution 95% of the time. I haven't viewed all of her rulings, but it's not a stretch for people to believe the judge is biased for the State. She had a reputation as a very pro-prosecution judge before she came into this trial and she hasn't disappointed.

The defense got rid of one judge for bias and they received a worse judge. I imagine there is some pretty strong political pressure being applied to this case behind the scenes.

What do the backseat lawyers just entering the thread on the last ####### days of the trial of which they have not watched even 5% of it say now?

:crickets:

The exact same thing we have been saying. You don't judge bias based upon how many calls go either way. The two sides in a criminal prosecution are not the judge's children. There's no principle where they both get ice cream if one gets ice cream. A judge rules on the legal question presented, and it is absolutely impossible to assess the bias inherent in any ruling simply by stating who the ruling favored.

That you would equate the granting of a freaking sidebar conference with substantive questions on jury instructions just illustrates how much you don't understand about this.

How many hours of this trial have you watched?

Under three. I've already admitted that are plenty of questions that you're as qualified, or even more qualified than I am to address. This isn't one of them. Because I've seen the clip of the "obviously biased" questioning to determine whether ZImmerman would testify (which wasn't anything of the sort). And because I'm familiar with the rules of evidence on authentication, and know that your claims of "bias" about that are baseless.

Which suggests that you're probably at a disadvantage for having watched more of the trial. Because you literally don't understand what you are watching. You might as well be watching Klingon opera.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

BDLR presenting a marshal badge as well as the rules of owning / using a Marshall badge to the Jury, was this presented during the trial?

 

[The Commish]

I do admire JoJo's tenacity....keep fighting the good fight dude...it's hard to be THIS willfully ignorant and completely lost in what others are saying to you.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=JConbBhngPM

At roughly the 3 minute mark, they say that the judge has come down on the side of the prosecution 95% of the time. I haven't viewed all of her rulings, but it's not a stretch for people to believe the judge is biased for the State. She had a reputation as a very pro-prosecution judge before she came into this trial and she hasn't disappointed.

The defense got rid of one judge for bias and they received a worse judge. I imagine there is some pretty strong political pressure being applied to this case behind the scenes.

What do the backseat lawyers just entering the thread on the last ####### days of the trial of which they have not watched even 5% of it say now?

:crickets:

The exact same thing we have been saying. You don't judge bias based upon how many calls go either way. The two sides in a criminal prosecution are not the judge's children. There's no principle where they both get ice cream if one gets ice cream. A judge rules on the legal question presented, and it is absolutely impossible to assess the bias inherent in any ruling simply by stating who the ruling favored.

That you would equate the granting of a freaking sidebar conference with substantive questions on jury instructions just illustrates how much you don't understand about this.

How many hours of this trial have you watched?

Under three. I've already admitted that are plenty of questions that you're as qualified, or even more qualified than I am to address. This isn't one of them. Because I've seen the clip of the "obviously biased" questioning to determine whether ZImmerman would testify (which wasn't anything of the sort). And because I'm familiar with the rules of evidence on authentication, and know that your claims of "bias" about that are baseless.

Which suggests that you're probably at a disadvantage for having watched more of the trial. Because you literally don't understand what you are watching. You might as well be watching Klingon opera.

3 hours?

Less than 1%.

Yeah you are a brilliant source of information to tell how the judge has acted during this trial.

 

[JShare87]

Guy just said the sprinkler box maybe caused some of those injuries. I'm pretty sure you could smash your head on one of those as hard as you want and it wouldn't cut your head.

Not that it has anything to do with the case, but I've jacked up metal aerator tines on sprinkler covers that are buried in the grass many times. I'd be willing to take that bet with you.

They just seem pretty hollow. I would never think it would cut your head if it came in contact with it. I may be wrong.

 

[The Commish]

@ Klingon Opera

 

[The Commish]

Guy just said the sprinkler box maybe caused some of those injuries. I'm pretty sure you could smash your head on one of those as hard as you want and it wouldn't cut your head.

Not that it has anything to do with the case, but I've jacked up metal aerator tines on sprinkler covers that are buried in the grass many times. I'd be willing to take that bet with you.

They just seem pretty hollow. I would never think it would cut your head if it came in contact with it. I may be wrong.

On the surface, I'd agree....but that's some tough ### plastic. I've learned the hard way.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

@ Klingon Opera

I'd watch that.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=JConbBhngPM

At roughly the 3 minute mark, they say that the judge has come down on the side of the prosecution 95% of the time. I haven't viewed all of her rulings, but it's not a stretch for people to believe the judge is biased for the State. She had a reputation as a very pro-prosecution judge before she came into this trial and she hasn't disappointed.

The defense got rid of one judge for bias and they received a worse judge. I imagine there is some pretty strong political pressure being applied to this case behind the scenes.

What do the backseat lawyers just entering the thread on the last ####### days of the trial of which they have not watched even 5% of it say now?

:crickets:

If somebody is wrong 95% of the time that doesn't mean there is bias. Also, defense attorneys object to preserve certain things for appeal rather than just their immediate impact on the trial (although that obviously is happening as well). You;d have to look at them individually for their merits.

How can denying a lawyer a sidebar 90-95% of the time (specifically when West has requested them) be considered anything other than biased when the judge allows nearly all sidebar requests from the prosecution? That isn't even a ruling, it is normal legal process or whatever the technical term is.

First, lets see the actual statistics rather than a FOX News contributor making statements for entertainment purposes. Secondly, what are you even talking about?

Don West has requested to approach the bench a number of times, Judge Nelson has denied nearly all of his requests.

BDLR and his team have made similar requests and very rarely has the Judge denied a side bar.

So? What do you think they are doing at sidebar?

Presenting a talking objection among other things. It's one thing to rule 95% of the time in favor of the state on objections, it's another thing entirely to not even allow a defense lawyer to make a (talking) objection. The Judge has stated a number of times she will not allow talking objections unless they are at a side bar. The State has been allowed a number of sidebars during direct or cross, Don West got shutdown nearly every attempt he made. Anyone watching the trial can verify this.

 

[Slapdash]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=JConbBhngPM

At roughly the 3 minute mark, they say that the judge has come down on the side of the prosecution 95% of the time. I haven't viewed all of her rulings, but it's not a stretch for people to believe the judge is biased for the State. She had a reputation as a very pro-prosecution judge before she came into this trial and she hasn't disappointed.

The defense got rid of one judge for bias and they received a worse judge. I imagine there is some pretty strong political pressure being applied to this case behind the scenes.

What do the backseat lawyers just entering the thread on the last ####### days of the trial of which they have not watched even 5% of it say now?

:crickets:

The exact same thing we have been saying. You don't judge bias based upon how many calls go either way. The two sides in a criminal prosecution are not the judge's children. There's no principle where they both get ice cream if one gets ice cream. A judge rules on the legal question presented, and it is absolutely impossible to assess the bias inherent in any ruling simply by stating who the ruling favored.

That you would equate the granting of a freaking sidebar conference with substantive questions on jury instructions just illustrates how much you don't understand about this.

How many hours of this trial have you watched?

Under three. I've already admitted that are plenty of questions that you're as qualified, or even more qualified than I am to address. This isn't one of them. Because I've seen the clip of the "obviously biased" questioning to determine whether ZImmerman would testify (which wasn't anything of the sort). And because I'm familiar with the rules of evidence on authentication, and know that your claims of "bias" about that are baseless.

Which suggests that you're probably at a disadvantage for having watched more of the trial. Because you literally don't understand what you are watching. You might as well be watching Klingon opera.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=JConbBhngPM

At roughly the 3 minute mark, they say that the judge has come down on the side of the prosecution 95% of the time. I haven't viewed all of her rulings, but it's not a stretch for people to believe the judge is biased for the State. She had a reputation as a very pro-prosecution judge before she came into this trial and she hasn't disappointed.

The defense got rid of one judge for bias and they received a worse judge. I imagine there is some pretty strong political pressure being applied to this case behind the scenes.

What do the backseat lawyers just entering the thread on the last ####### days of the trial of which they have not watched even 5% of it say now?

:crickets:

Seriously? I love people like you. My favorite is when you debate me in a court room because you can represent yourself because you read a pamphlet or watch a lot of TV. Good on you.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=JConbBhngPM

At roughly the 3 minute mark, they say that the judge has come down on the side of the prosecution 95% of the time. I haven't viewed all of her rulings, but it's not a stretch for people to believe the judge is biased for the State. She had a reputation as a very pro-prosecution judge before she came into this trial and she hasn't disappointed.

The defense got rid of one judge for bias and they received a worse judge. I imagine there is some pretty strong political pressure being applied to this case behind the scenes.

What do the backseat lawyers just entering the thread on the last ####### days of the trial of which they have not watched even 5% of it say now?

:crickets:

The exact same thing we have been saying. You don't judge bias based upon how many calls go either way. The two sides in a criminal prosecution are not the judge's children. There's no principle where they both get ice cream if one gets ice cream. A judge rules on the legal question presented, and it is absolutely impossible to assess the bias inherent in any ruling simply by stating who the ruling favored.

That you would equate the granting of a freaking sidebar conference with substantive questions on jury instructions just illustrates how much you don't understand about this.

Screw that, next time I'm on my feet if I don't get a sidebar, I'm yelling bull**** money grab. That will show them.

 

[3C's]

I do admire JoJo's tenacity....keep fighting the good fight dude...it's hard to be THIS willfully ignorant and completely lost in what others are saying to you.

It's like a gift or something.

@ Klingon Opera

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=JConbBhngPM

At roughly the 3 minute mark, they say that the judge has come down on the side of the prosecution 95% of the time. I haven't viewed all of her rulings, but it's not a stretch for people to believe the judge is biased for the State. She had a reputation as a very pro-prosecution judge before she came into this trial and she hasn't disappointed.

The defense got rid of one judge for bias and they received a worse judge. I imagine there is some pretty strong political pressure being applied to this case behind the scenes.

What do the backseat lawyers just entering the thread on the last ####### days of the trial of which they have not watched even 5% of it say now?

:crickets:

The exact same thing we have been saying. You don't judge bias based upon how many calls go either way. The two sides in a criminal prosecution are not the judge's children. There's no principle where they both get ice cream if one gets ice cream. A judge rules on the legal question presented, and it is absolutely impossible to assess the bias inherent in any ruling simply by stating who the ruling favored.

That you would equate the granting of a freaking sidebar conference with substantive questions on jury instructions just illustrates how much you don't understand about this.

Screw that, next time I'm on my feet if I don't get a sidebar, I'm yelling bull**** money grab. That will show them.

Come back when you get shutdown every time for a sidebar across a 45 day trial and then tell us your opinion.