quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: PressPlay

If you listened to his 911 call, you know that he did not stop following.

Sorry but this is wrong. The encounter started at nearly exactly the same spot George agreed to not follow, after agreeing not to follow George spent the rest of the call not knowing where Trayvon was, and the lead investigator, Chris Serino was unable to offer any evidence that George continued to follow.

So Zimmerman is a liar.

He did tell the dispatcher he would go to the mailboxes and wait for the police there..

and again there is nothing to prove he wasn't heading that way or preparing to head that way...

even if all he did was stand completely still, it would mean he was not following

is there something that pinpoints exactly where Z was at the moment the 911 OP said he didn't need to follow? if I rememebr right, it seemed to me, Z had indicated he was a confused about his exact location at that moment


and I'll admit, I do not know, I am asking!

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Mark O’Mara, Mr. Zimmerman’s lawyer, argued that Mr. Martin’s drug use could have made him aggressive and paranoid, which the defense said might have prompted him to attack Mr. Zimmerman, 29, a neighborhood watch volunteer.

“All of that fits in squarely to what the defense is going to present: that George Zimmerman was put in the position that he had to act in self-defense,” Mr. O’Mara said. “How could you keep us from arguing that?”

Judge Nelson replied, “The rules of evidence keep you from doing it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/us/judge-in-trayvon-martin-case-puts-limits-on-defense.html?smid=pl-share&_r=1&

Updated 2010.... Current as of May 2013... Florida Rules of Evidence

http://law.onecle.com/florida/evidence/90.803.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun



Straw man, ad hominem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: PressPlay

Are you serious BitYakin?? The evidence is a teenager is dead. A teenager who did not think his life would end at his fathers girlfriends apartment complex. If you listened to his 911 call, you know that he did not stop following. The entire exchange was not caught on the phone. The call ended before the encounter ended. WE do not know what else took place except a Teen died. It took 45 days for them to arrest Zimmerman. Even his interview at the station on the day this happened is faulty in MY opinion. You can be in his corner, I don't mind that, but understand that Zimmerman caused the dead of a teen simply because........

and if that was the ONLY evidence you'd have a point!

I did listen to the 911 call and there is absolutley nothing in there at indiactes he did not stop following him...
he did not say, NO I am going to follow him anyhow, there are no sounds that indicate and/or prove he continued to follow...
maybe you could tell me/us the specific words and/or sounds you heard on the 911 call that conclusively proves Z continued to follow M?? First, I doubt that you did listen to the NEN call (it wasn't 911) because you keep referring to the operator as "she" when it was a man. But other than that, you're right, there was no "sound". But you do have Z first saying that he will meet the police back at his vehicle, then changing his mind and asking that the police call him on his cell when they arrive so that he can tell them where he is at that time. That is a clear indication that he is continuing to look for Martin. Or maybe you think he was just out enjoying the rain? Then there is the fact that from the time the operator told him that he didn't need to follow Martin, Zimmerman had about 2 minutes while they remained on the phone in which he could have easily walked the short distance back to his truck. But he didn't go back to his truck, and again I ask you why...was he just enjoying being out in the rain too much?

cause I think if what you say is there, is in fact there, the prosecution MIGHT have pointed it out to the jury

maybe you can give me a link to where the prosecution said and this sound proves conclusively that Z did not stop following M as suggested to him to do

and yes the entire verbal exchange up to the point that physical contact was made was testified to by an eye, or rather ear witness!

and it clearly shows M made NO ATTEMPT to respond verbally to Z's question of what are you doing here? It would appear that Martin didn't have time to verbally respond. The "ear witness" said the next thing Martin said was "Get off. Get off." Why would he say that unless Zimmerman was physically trying to detain him? Also, Zimmerman didn't bother to respond to Martin's question about why Z was following him, and THAT question was asked first. Throughout various interviews and interactions with the police and the media Zimmerman constantly made it a point to point out he was with the Neighborhood Watch...except for the time when it was most critical to do so...when Martin asked why Z was following him. Had Z simply said then, like he did many, many times other than that, that he was with the Neighborhood Watch the entire incident would most likely have been avoided.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Mark O’Mara, Mr. Zimmerman’s lawyer, argued that Mr. Martin’s drug use could have made him aggressive and paranoid, which the defense said might have prompted him to attack Mr. Zimmerman, 29, a neighborhood watch volunteer.

“All of that fits in squarely to what the defense is going to present: that George Zimmerman was put in the position that he had to act in self-defense,” Mr. O’Mara said. “How could you keep us from arguing that?”

Judge Nelson replied, “The rules of evidence keep you from doing it.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/us/judge-in-trayvon-martin-case-puts-limits-on-defense.html?smid=pl-share&_r=1&

Updated 2010.... Current as of May 2013... Florida Rules of Evidence

http://law.onecle.com/florida/evidence/90.803.html

I think there is some confusion here, you seem to be talking about testimony about drug use, and they seem to be talking about wether txt messages can be admitted and under what circumstances they can be admitted

quote:

I think there is some confusion here, you seem to be talking about testimony about drug use, and they seem to be talking about wether txt messages can be admitted and under what circumstances they can be admitted

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun



Straw man, ad hominem.

You said admission of X = evidence that x is true. I proved otherwise.

It is neither straw man nor ad hominem.

Rule admits to be a super genius.
Are you saying that is evidence that he is?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun



Straw man, ad hominem.

You said admission of X = evidence that x is true. I proved otherwise.

It is neither straw man nor ad hominem.

Rule admits to be a super genius.
Are you saying that is evidence that he is?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: PressPlay

If you listened to his 911 call, you know that he did not stop following.

Sorry but this is wrong. The encounter started at nearly exactly the same spot George agreed to not follow, after agreeing not to follow George spent the rest of the call not knowing where Trayvon was, and the lead investigator, Chris Serino was unable to offer any evidence that George continued to follow.

So Zimmerman is a liar.

He did tell the dispatcher he would go to the mailboxes and wait for the police there..

and again there is nothing to prove he wasn't heading that way or preparing to head that way...

even if all he did was stand completely still, it would mean he was not following

is there something that pinpoints exactly where Z was at the moment the 911 OP said he didn't need to follow? if I rememebr right, it seemed to me, Z had indicated he was a confused about his exact location at that moment


and I'll admit, I do not know, I am asking!

There was a 3 minute gap between him hanging up and the shooting. The police arrived on scene within a minute of the shooting so if he was going to the mailboxes he should have been underway before Martin confronted him and this whole thing would not have happened.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ladytisha
I have every right to defend myself from harm. Self Defense

By attacking someone who has not harmed you? How many innocent people have you attacked today?

Are you saying that it is against the law to bitch slap someone who assaults you?

no we are saying its against the law to bitch slap someone who has NOT attacked you

quote:

Also, the state used nothing more than George saying he was taking MMA training as evidence of being a capable fighter. By your logic, that would be inadmissible, yet the judge allowed it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun



Straw man, ad hominem.

You said admission of X = evidence that x is true. I proved otherwise.

It is neither straw man nor ad hominem.

Rule admits to be a super genius.
Are you saying that is evidence that he is?

No you didn't prove anything. And you're confusing evidence with proof.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun



Straw man, ad hominem.

You said admission of X = evidence that x is true. I proved otherwise.

It is neither straw man nor ad hominem.

Rule admits to be a super genius.
Are you saying that is evidence that he is?

No you didn't prove anything. And you're confusing evidence with proof.

What I'm proving is that people who brag on the internet about doing something are frequently full of shit.
Full of shit doesn't fly in court.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun


So George could have been full of it when he told the pretty PA that he was taking MMA classes. Yet, that flew in court.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun


So George could have been full of it when he told the pretty PA that he was taking MMA classes. Yet, that flew in court.

If that's all they had to go on, yes.

But there were real flesh and blood witnesses and written records.

Do you know the difference between real people and a text?

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: PressPlay

Are you serious BitYakin?? The evidence is a teenager is dead. A teenager who did not think his life would end at his fathers girlfriends apartment complex. If you listened to his 911 call, you know that he did not stop following. The entire exchange was not caught on the phone. The call ended before the encounter ended. WE do not know what else took place except a Teen died. It took 45 days for them to arrest Zimmerman. Even his interview at the station on the day this happened is faulty in MY opinion. You can be in his corner, I don't mind that, but understand that Zimmerman caused the dead of a teen simply because........

and if that was the ONLY evidence you'd have a point!

I did listen to the 911 call and there is absolutley nothing in there at indiactes he did not stop following him...
he did not say, NO I am going to follow him anyhow, there are no sounds that indicate and/or prove he continued to follow...
maybe you could tell me/us the specific words and/or sounds you heard on the 911 call that conclusively proves Z continued to follow M?? First, I doubt that you did listen to the NEN call (it wasn't 911) because you keep referring to the operator as "she" when it was a man. But other than that, you're right, there was no "sound". But you do have Z first saying that he will meet the police back at his vehicle, then changing his mind and asking that the police call him on his cell when they arrive so that he can tell them where he is at that time. That is a clear indication that he is continuing to look for Martin. Or maybe you think he was just out enjoying the rain? Then there is the fact that from the time the operator told him that he didn't need to follow Martin, Zimmerman had about 2 minutes while they remained on the phone in which he could have easily walked the short distance back to his truck. But he didn't go back to his truck, and again I ask you why...was he just enjoying being out in the rain too much?[/color]

cause I think if what you say is there, is in fact there, the prosecution MIGHT have pointed it out to the jury

maybe you can give me a link to where the prosecution said and this sound proves conclusively that Z did not stop following M as suggested to him to do

and yes the entire verbal exchange up to the point that physical contact was made was testified to by an eye, or rather ear witness!

and it clearly shows M made NO ATTEMPT to respond verbally to Z's question of what are you doing here? It would appear that Martin didn't have time to verbally respond. The "ear witness" said the next thing Martin said was "Get off. Get off." Why would he say that unless Zimmerman was physically trying to detain him?[/b] Also, Zimmerman didn't bother to respond to Martin's question about why Z was following him, and THAT question was asked first. Throughout various interviews and interactions with the police and the media Zimmerman constantly made it a point to point out he was with the Neighborhood Watch...except for the time when it was most critical to do so...when Martin asked why Z was following him. Had Z simply said then, like he did many, many times other than that, that he was with the Neighborhood Watch the entire incident would most likely have been avoided.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ladytisha
I have every right to defend myself from harm. Self Defense

By attacking someone who has not harmed you? How many innocent people have you attacked today?

Are you saying that it is against the law to bitch slap someone who assaults you?

no we are saying its against the law to bitch slap someone who has NOT attacked you

Is an assault an attack?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun


So George could have been full of it when he told the pretty PA that he was taking MMA classes. Yet, that flew in court.

If that's all they had to go on, yes.

But there were real flesh and blood witnesses and written records.

Do you know the difference between real people and a text?

All the State submitted was what George told the PA.

No different than what Trayvon told people in texts.