Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Prosecutor's objections sustained 4-times in a row. GZ lawyer making mistakes, trying to go around the rules.
Oldest legal trick in the book.
When you don't have the facts on your side argue procedural issues instead.
Only problem is that it is a poor substitute for an actual defense case.
He did not attack Zimmerman. The Prosecutor said there was no blood on Trevon's hands, none of Zimmerman's blood was on Trevon, Trevon's blood was on Zimmerman though.
He killed that kid in cold blood.
It is simple enough to punch someone in the face, bust his nose and not come away with any of his blood on your hands. Similarly, it is easy to crack a guy's head repeatedly onto the pavement, opening up bleeding wounds on the back of the guy's head and NOT get any blood on your hands or anywhere on your person.
There is NO evidence that Zimmerman shot the kid in cold blood. There is significant evidence that it was quite the opposite.
It's also possible that the blood on Zimmerman came from him trying to run after he shot the kid. He may have fallen, the blood was minimal for a broken nose and the scratches on his head were 2 centimeters long. The worst wound was that long.
It wasn't quite the opposite. The prosecution made some very compelling arguments. The defense screwed theirs up. West acted like he was drunk or senile and he droned on and on forever.
Let's see how the rest of the case goes.
Rank amateurs count the number of sustained objections as a measure of how the trial is progressing.
Laughable, but revealing.
Derideo and dolt.com fall for such nonsense time after time.
Who would ever have guessed that there were "PROFESSIONAL" trial commentators like Ilya posting on the USMB?
Did you get your law degree from Liberty?
Mocking your laughable commentary doesn't make me a trial commentator.
It's more like a commentator on the idiot commentators.
Anyway, I'd stack my law degree up against yours any day, and my experience even more so, chuckles.
But thanks for playing.
Now hurry back with another brilliant insight.
The dispatcher is a young white guy talking to another young white guy about "this" punk. I'm also white and I hear anger, I hear profiling of this punk. So what if some of the people in their area like this dispatcher are good with killing "these" punks, does that doesn't make vigilantism ok, or does it? Hell look at GJ and the dispatcher they are getting mad just listening to the tape again. If it was a white girl in a sun dress they would not be talking about her this way.After watching the entire questioning phase, the 911 dispatcher's testimony stood out the most. The defense asked Knoffke (sp?) if Zimmerman was acting as if he had any malice, ill will or spite towards Martin, to which he replied that he didn't, and he further testified that Zimmerman did not seem to be profiling him. The comments "these assholes" or "these punks" did not suggest anything according to the questions by the defense. The prosecution was called for speculation and the Judge sustained, at least three separate instances.
Mrs. Rumph took the stand, and was asked some technical questions, during the questioning, the Prosecutor played a call from August 2011 placed by Zimmerman in regards to a burglary that day. He described the assailant as black. They tried to establish prior intentions based on that August 2011 call in regards to the call on February 26, 2012, to which the Defense called the Prosecution on relevance. The Prosecutor contends that he is trying to establish prior bad acts. The prosecution is trying to call the character of Zimmerman into question, as well as contend that he profiled Martin, and by my count, failed. The only time you call the defendant's character and beliefs into question is if your original argument is debunked or countered effectively.
The prosecution just had one of it main contentions blown out of the water on day one.
Who would ever have guessed that there were "PROFESSIONAL" trial commentators like Ilya posting on the USMB?
Did you get your law degree from Liberty?
Mocking your laughable commentary doesn't make me a trial commentator.
It's more like a commentator on the idiot commentators.
Anyway, I'd stack my law degree up against yours any day, and my experience even more so, chuckles.
But thanks for playing.
Now hurry back with another brilliant insight.
Did you get those big muscles from pumping your ego?
Prosecutor's objections sustained 4-times in a row. GZ lawyer making mistakes, trying to go around the rules.
Oldest legal trick in the book.
When you don't have the facts on your side argue procedural issues instead.
Only problem is that it is a poor substitute for an actual defense case.
Rank amateurs count the number of sustained objections as a measure of how the trial is progressing.
Laughable, but revealing.
Derideo and dolt.com fall for such nonsense time after time.
Oldest legal trick in the book.
When you don't have the facts on your side argue procedural issues instead.
Only problem is that it is a poor substitute for an actual defense case.
Rank amateurs count the number of sustained objections as a measure of how the trial is progressing.
Laughable, but revealing.
Derideo and dolt.com fall for such nonsense time after time.
I see a certain advantage to having objections made and sustained. At least the information is out there. The judge can tell the jury to disregard all he wants, but you can't unring a bell.
Oldest legal trick in the book.
When you don't have the facts on your side argue procedural issues instead.
Only problem is that it is a poor substitute for an actual defense case.
Rank amateurs count the number of sustained objections as a measure of how the trial is progressing.
Laughable, but revealing.
Derideo and dolt.com fall for such nonsense time after time.
I see a certain advantage to having objections made and sustained. At least the information is out there. The judge can tell the jury to disregard all he wants, but you can't unring a bell.
The reason for my comment is in bold. I am not bored by facts, I'm bored by the defense version of the facts.
You have some evidence that contradicts Defense's opening argument?
Trevon Martin does not get to attack a guy that is following him because he is black. For too many, being black is an excuse for antisocial behavior. It's a piss poor excuse!
He did not attack Zimmerman. The Prosecutor said there was no blood on Trevon's hands, none of Zimmerman's blood was on Trevon, Trevon's blood was on Zimmerman though.
He killed that kid in cold blood.
It is simple enough to punch someone in the face, bust his nose and not come away with any of his blood on your hands. Similarly, it is easy to crack a guy's head repeatedly onto the pavement, opening up bleeding wounds on the back of the guy's head and NOT get any blood on your hands or anywhere on your person.
There is NO evidence that Zimmerman shot the kid in cold blood. There is significant evidence that it was quite the opposite.
It's also possible that the blood on Zimmerman came from him trying to run after he shot the kid. He may have fallen, the blood was minimal for a broken nose and the scratches on his head were 2 centimeters long. The worst wound was that long.
It wasn't quite the opposite. The prosecution made some very compelling arguments. The defense screwed theirs up. West acted like he was drunk or senile and he droned on and on forever.
Let's see how the rest of the case goes.
Wrong. The busted nose was a busted nose. YOU might want to quantify it as a minor busted nose, but that's plainly absurd.
They fucking hurt. A lot.
The amount of bleeding on the back of the head is not the telling part, either. The fact that the wounds (that's plural by the way) existed at all is what's important. It kind of tells a story. The story it tells amounts to corroboration of Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon was pounding his head onto the pavement.
What I said was QUITE THE OPPOSITE was simply a denial of your utterly unsupported sophistry that Zimmerman shot the kid in cold blood. It appears much more reasonable to believe that he shot in reaction to what was being inflicted ON him.
And that has NOTHING to do with a cold blooded shooting.
The prosecution's case is quickly eroding.
Mocking your laughable commentary doesn't make me a trial commentator.
It's more like a commentator on the idiot commentators.
Anyway, I'd stack my law degree up against yours any day, and my experience even more so, chuckles.
But thanks for playing.
Now hurry back with another brilliant insight.
Did you get those big muscles from pumping your ego?
They just seem massive compared to your sadly tiny intellect.
Understandable.
, is going down 
Rank amateurs count the number of sustained objections as a measure of how the trial is progressing.
Laughable, but revealing.
Derideo and dolt.com fall for such nonsense time after time.
I see a certain advantage to having objections made and sustained. At least the information is out there. The judge can tell the jury to disregard all he wants, but you can't unring a bell.
Exactly what we were taught in law school, you can't unring the bell. However, if the information is prejudicial and/ or egregious enough the judge CAN declare a mistrial and start over from scratch. Somehow I doubt that will occur in the case currently at bar.
It's also possible that the blood on Zimmerman came from him trying to run after he shot the kid. He may have fallen, the blood was minimal for a broken nose and the scratches on his head were 2 centimeters long. The worst wound was that long.
It wasn't quite the opposite. The prosecution made some very compelling arguments. The defense screwed theirs up. West acted like he was drunk or senile and he droned on and on forever.
Let's see how the rest of the case goes.
Wrong. The busted nose was a busted nose. YOU might want to quantify it as a minor busted nose, but that's plainly absurd.
They fucking hurt. A lot.
The amount of bleeding on the back of the head is not the telling part, either. The fact that the wounds (that's plural by the way) existed at all is what's important. It kind of tells a story. The story it tells amounts to corroboration of Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon was pounding his head onto the pavement.
What I said was QUITE THE OPPOSITE was simply a denial of your utterly unsupported sophistry that Zimmerman shot the kid in cold blood. It appears much more reasonable to believe that he shot in reaction to what was being inflicted ON him.
And that has NOTHING to do with a cold blooded shooting.
The prosecution's case is quickly eroding.
Already? I know I was listening intently as likely were the women on that jury. John Guy is an effective communicator.
He did not attack Zimmerman. The Prosecutor said there was no blood on Trevon's hands, none of Zimmerman's blood was on Trevon, Trevon's blood was on Zimmerman though.
He killed that kid in cold blood.
It is simple enough to punch someone in the face, bust his nose and not come away with any of his blood on your hands. Similarly, it is easy to crack a guy's head repeatedly onto the pavement, opening up bleeding wounds on the back of the guy's head and NOT get any blood on your hands or anywhere on your person.
There is NO evidence that Zimmerman shot the kid in cold blood. There is significant evidence that it was quite the opposite.
It's also possible that the blood on Zimmerman came from him trying to run after he shot the kid. He may have fallen, the blood was minimal for a broken nose and the scratches on his head were 2 centimeters long. The worst wound was that long.
It wasn't quite the opposite. The prosecution made some very compelling arguments. The defense screwed theirs up. West acted like he was drunk or senile and he droned on and on forever.
Let's see how the rest of the case goes.
It's also possible that the blood on Zimmerman came from him trying to run after he shot the kid. He may have fallen, the blood was minimal for a broken nose and the scratches on his head were 2 centimeters long. The worst wound was that long.
It wasn't quite the opposite. The prosecution made some very compelling arguments. The defense screwed theirs up. West acted like he was drunk or senile and he droned on and on forever.
Let's see how the rest of the case goes.
Wrong. The busted nose was a busted nose. YOU might want to quantify it as a minor busted nose, but that's plainly absurd.
They fucking hurt. A lot.
The amount of bleeding on the back of the head is not the telling part, either. The fact that the wounds (that's plural by the way) existed at all is what's important. It kind of tells a story. The story it tells amounts to corroboration of Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon was pounding his head onto the pavement.
What I said was QUITE THE OPPOSITE was simply a denial of your utterly unsupported sophistry that Zimmerman shot the kid in cold blood. It appears much more reasonable to believe that he shot in reaction to what was being inflicted ON him.
And that has NOTHING to do with a cold blooded shooting.
The prosecution's case is quickly eroding.
Already? I know I was listening intently as likely were the women on that jury. John Guy is an effective communicator.
Did you get those big muscles from pumping your ego?
They just seem massive compared to your sadly tiny intellect.
Understandable.
The dispatcher is a young white guy talking to another young white guy about "this" punk. I'm also white and I hear anger, I hear profiling of this punk. So what if some of the people in their area like this dispatcher are good with killing "these" punks, does that doesn't make vigilantism ok, or does it? Hell look at GJ and the dispatcher they are getting mad just listening to the tape again. If it was a white girl in a sun dress they would not be talking about her this way.After watching the entire questioning phase, the 911 dispatcher's testimony stood out the most. The defense asked Knoffke (sp?) if Zimmerman was acting as if he had any malice, ill will or spite towards Martin, to which he replied that he didn't, and he further testified that Zimmerman did not seem to be profiling him. The comments "these assholes" or "these punks" did not suggest anything according to the questions by the defense. The prosecution was called for speculation and the Judge sustained, at least three separate instances.
Mrs. Rumph took the stand, and was asked some technical questions, during the questioning, the Prosecutor played a call from August 2011 placed by Zimmerman in regards to a burglary that day. He described the assailant as black. They tried to establish prior intentions based on that August 2011 call in regards to the call on February 26, 2012, to which the Defense called the Prosecution on relevance. The Prosecutor contends that he is trying to establish prior bad acts. The prosecution is trying to call the character of Zimmerman into question, as well as contend that he profiled Martin, and by my count, failed. The only time you call the defendant's character and beliefs into question is if your original argument is debunked or countered effectively.
The prosecution just had one of it main contentions blown out of the water on day one.
What does that say?
To me? It says we should not profile people based on wardrobe, height, gender, or the color of skin. It says if you are not a punk you might want to avoid hoodies in that area in Florida. It suggests that racism is alive and well and that maybe race and gender played a factor in profiling this teenager.The dispatcher is a young white guy talking to another young white guy about "this" punk. I'm also white and I hear anger, I hear profiling of this punk. So what if some of the people in their area like this dispatcher are good with killing "these" punks, does that doesn't make vigilantism ok, or does it? Hell look at GJ and the dispatcher they are getting mad just listening to the tape again. If it was a white girl in a sun dress they would not be talking about her this way.After watching the entire questioning phase, the 911 dispatcher's testimony stood out the most. The defense asked Knoffke (sp?) if Zimmerman was acting as if he had any malice, ill will or spite towards Martin, to which he replied that he didn't, and he further testified that Zimmerman did not seem to be profiling him. The comments "these assholes" or "these punks" did not suggest anything according to the questions by the defense. The prosecution was called for speculation and the Judge sustained, at least three separate instances.
Mrs. Rumph took the stand, and was asked some technical questions, during the questioning, the Prosecutor played a call from August 2011 placed by Zimmerman in regards to a burglary that day. He described the assailant as black. They tried to establish prior intentions based on that August 2011 call in regards to the call on February 26, 2012, to which the Defense called the Prosecution on relevance. The Prosecutor contends that he is trying to establish prior bad acts. The prosecution is trying to call the character of Zimmerman into question, as well as contend that he profiled Martin, and by my count, failed. The only time you call the defendant's character and beliefs into question is if your original argument is debunked or countered effectively.
The prosecution just had one of it main contentions blown out of the water on day one.
What does that say?
