(07-08-2013, 11:09 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
None of George's witnesses want to admit that fat fuck is running, as in chasing T. Assholes.
He wasn't going to let this one get away.
They always do.
(07-08-2013, 11:09 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
None of George's witnesses want to admit that fat fuck is running, as in chasing T. Assholes.
None of these witnesses have any more insight into what went down that night than you or I. They weren't there and can only know what George told them.
These are just character witnesses that the defense is using to humanize George Zimmerman and convince the jury that it was George screaming for help (and, therefore, he was in fear for his life and reasonably believed he had to shoot Trayvon Martin). IMO.
I think that the defense witnesses, so far, are better prepared than were the prosecution witnesses.
(07-08-2013, 11:20 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]None of these witnesses have any more insight into what went down that night than you or I.
Don't you bring logic into this, young lady. I'm bloodthirsty. 
(07-08-2013, 11:16 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]He wasn't going to let this one get away.
They always do.
You agree with me! Ha! 
Abram was on the View this morning. That's adding insult to injury !
(07-08-2013, 10:21 AM)Adub Wrote: [ -> ]The so called SYG statute is the only self-defense statute in Florida. It is the law in Florida for any self-defense claim.
Look it up.
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.012
And here is the disclaimer to justifiable homicide that George has to over come.
776.041 Use of force by aggressor
I had and I did, again.
There are many layers to 776. It is not a "one size fits all" statute. I believe that was Abram's point.
776.012 Use of force in defense of person. - A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
Reasonably believes . . . great bodily harm.
I believe we will agree 776.013 doesn't apply as this was NOT defense of home (Home Protection).
776.041 Use of force by aggressor. - The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
It's tough to escape when someone is sitting on your torso.
Let's not forget the Civil implications if tubbie is acquitted.
Keeping the voice analysts out + the fact that Zimmerman is a straight up pussy = advantages for O'Mara and the defense.
Looks like the defense strategy is built around character witnesses/friends claiming that the voice crying for help was Georgie's, along with focusing on the fact that George couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag (inference being that his fear of imminent great bodily harm or death was reasonable, even if it wouldn't have been for someone less wimpish).
IMO.
I hope the defense rests today or tomorrow.
(07-08-2013, 03:25 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]....witnesses/friends claiming that the voice crying for help was Georgie's, along with focusing on the fact that George couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag (inference being that his fear of imminent great bodily harm or death was reasonable, even if it wouldn't have been for someone less wimpish).
Looks like George should have been performing his NHW duties from the safety of an ivory tower.
(07-08-2013, 03:25 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]George couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag
I've always believed that, I've always believed his gun allowed him to have balls. I think I could have run up behind him on a dark, rainy night and shouted BOO and it would have scared the crap out of him.
West is saying that T was swaying at the 7-11 counter & that he had a lighter on him so that points to him being on drugs and he wants to be able to talk about that. WTF. I don't smoke cigarettes nor do I smoke weed in public but I carry a lighter in my handbag and I've been known to sway to a beat only I can hear. I don't think it means anything.
^ It doesn't mean anything. IMO.
We know now, from testimony, that Travon had an earpiece. Trayvon was on the phone with Rachel the whole time that George was following him and George never mentioned being aware of that in any of his statements.
Even if that weren't the case, swaying and carrying a lighter are irrelevant; I'll be surprised if Judge Nelson doesn't deny the motion. Showing that 7-11 video was not sufficient to open the door to the tox report.
Wow. I guess the judge is letting in the tox report. The jury should be made aware of all the medications G was taking FFS.
(07-08-2013, 05:21 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]Wow. I guess the judge is letting in the tox report. The jury should be made aware of all the medications G was taking FFS.
Surprised me.
I think it's way more prejudicial than probative in value.
But, the case law cited by West seems to support letting it in to avoid reversible error / appeal (though I don't think trace amounts of THC equates to high levels of cocaine and alcohol).
(That damned Dr. Bao hurt the state in so many ways - bozo).
Lots of decisions being made in this afternoon's hearing (outside of jury presence) that will affect the remainder of the trial.
The judge just ruled that defense expert Dennis Root will not be able to testify that Zimmerman didn't violate any Florida statutes. He also won't be able to testify that Zimmerman was reasonable in his use of force; that's for the jury to decide.
A hearing is now underway to determine whether a defense animation exhibit will be admissible.
I wasn't able to listen to very much of the trial today and I missed T's Dad on the stand. I just heard that he said (without saying) that the cops are lying when they say he replied, no that's not his son's voice screaming for help. He went on to say that one of the cops who testified to that wasn't even in the room when he listened to the recording. Woooo
(07-08-2013, 08:23 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]I wasn't able to listen to very much of the trial today and I missed T's Dad on the stand. I just heard that he said (without saying) that the cops are lying when they say he replied, no that's not his son's voice screaming for help. He went on to say that one of the cops who testified to that wasn't even in the room when he listened to the recording. Woooo
I don't know if the jury caught this (and I fault the prosecution for not pointing it out more but)....
Supposedly the lead detective asked T's dad if the voice on the tape was that of his son. He said T's dad, under his breath said "no". The other cop that was supposedly there (although Tracy Martin didn't see her) said she heard him say several words, i.e., "no that's not Trayvon". There was a contradiction in what they testified to but I'm not sure who caught that. One cop said he just said "no", the other said he specifically said "that's not Trayvon" or "that's not my son". Big difference IMO.
The prosecution tried to portray it as Tracy just saying "no" in denial that his son had died.
I don't know what the jury took away from that testimony.
Other testimony that bothered me today was the MMA instructor who portrayed George as "soft". He didn't look so "soft" at the time. And how did Trayvon supposedly obtain mad fighting skills? He was somehow better equipped to fight than George? Why?
I don't know if the prosecution can't go to these issues or just haven't done it.
Shame too that the defendant wasn't tested for drug use.
Thanks, User. That was explained much better than what I heard.
One of the defense attorneys looks like Howdy Doody.
I think part of the reason that Trayvon's toxicology was ruled admissible is because of the incoherent ramblings of ME Bao on the subject - opened the door enough to make the case law cited by West applicable. Bao was such a regrettable witness.
Don't know if the many meds that Zimmerman was on the night of the killing can be used by the prosecution to show a reciprocal possibility that Zimmerman was impaired. I'd think that his language could be construed as "paranoid" which might be a foundation, if the prosecution wants to fight to get it in.
In any case, sure hope the prosecution foresaw today's ruling and is prepared to dispute the defense's expert witness on cross and/or call a counter witness.
That level of THC is completely irrelevant; disappointed that it will be presented to the jury. JMO.
I know Adub posted drugs that Z was taking but I think I heard he wasn't subject to a blood test that night so the prosecution won't be able to enter that. I dunno for sure.