At 7/10/13 03:47 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 7/10/13 03:44 PM, Ceratisa wrote: So known and confirmed school violence and suspensions, and typed messages to a secure phone are hearsay? Why exactly is that the case?

The suspension part isn't hearsay, that's just character evidence. Which the defense really shouldn't have (and didn't, for the most part) try to play around with, because then the jury can hear about Zimmerman assaulting a police officer.

You mean the out of uniform officer (or was it undercover I forget) that he pushed off his younger friend? Is that what you consider assault?

The prosecution actually opened up Zimmerman's past, which was mentioned after the defense was denied use of TM's. This was mentioned somewhere in one of the articles I linked I think.

At 7/10/13 03:54 PM, Ceratisa wrote: You mean the out of uniform officer (or was it undercover I forget) that he pushed off his younger friend? Is that what you consider assault?

Yes.

The prosecution actually opened up Zimmerman's past, which was mentioned after the defense was denied use of TM's. This was mentioned somewhere in one of the articles I linked I think.

Well then go find it.

Yes.

The prosecution actually opened up Zimmerman's past, which was mentioned after the defense was denied use of TM's. This was mentioned somewhere in one of the articles I linked I think.

Well then go find it.

You are listening right now, right?
I guess it wasn't important for the law.

Here, there are other articles

OâEUTMMara told CNN on Tuesday night that if prosecutors start bringing up ZimmermanâEUTMs past, âEUoethen it really brings in what Trayvon Martin brings to the table, all of his violent acts that we know about and some of the fighting that he was involved in.âEU

"In testimony Tuesday, prosecutors tried to pick apart the statements of a Sanford police detective who was a prosecution witness but gave testimony that legal analysts said helped the defense.

Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda asked the judge to strike from the record a statement that Detective Chris Serino made Monday in which he said he found ZimmermanâEUTMs account of how he got into a fight with Martin to be credible.

De la Rionda argued the statement was improper because one witness isnâEUTMt allowed to give an opinion on the credibility of another witness. Defense attorney Mark OâEUTMMara argued it was proper because it was SerinoâEUTMs job to decide whether Zimmerman was telling the truth."

Nelson told jurors to disregard the statement.

Surprise

At 7/10/13 05:05 PM, Ceratisa wrote: if prosecutors start bringing up Zimmerman's past

If. They didn't.

At 7/10/13 05:15 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 7/10/13 05:05 PM, Ceratisa wrote: if prosecutors start bringing up Zimmerman's past

If. They didn't.

They did actually, and most recently they have moved to present a rebuttal witness. But that wasn't the only time either.

At 7/10/13 05:16 PM, Ceratisa wrote: They did actually,

When?

and most recently they have moved to present a rebuttal witness.

Root and Pollack testified that Zimmerman wasn't the type of person to get aggressive, so it's a rebuttal to those statements. It hasn't been decided if it is usable by the judge yet.

But that wasn't the only time either.

Like?

FOIFA Documents Reveal The Justice Department had involvement in Anti-Zimmerman protests in Florida!

Mistrial Zimmerman NOW.

But that wasn't the only time either.

Like?

Bringing up Zimmerman's classes
and once again those charges were dropped as defense noted is very rarely done.

For TM supporters why are they obsessed with him leaving his truck? That action wasn't illegal
And I would like them to present their theory on the EXACT break down of the situation that matches expert testimony including gunshot range, and injuries sustained. As well goes along with Mr. Good's eye witness testimony. (TM was on top Zimmerman on the bottom yelling for help)

At 7/10/13 06:53 PM, Ceratisa wrote: For TM supporters why are they obsessed with him leaving his truck? That action wasn't illegal

If the judge comes back tomorrow and rules in favor of the prosecution w/r/t the jury being allowed to consider lesser charges (aggravated assault, possibly aggravated stalking) then him leaving the car is a big deal. I think the state knows they aren't getting murder 2 since they weren't able to prove Zimmerman assaulted Martin beyond a reasonable doubt so they're going to focus on him intentionally seeking Martin after he started running.

If the judge comes back tomorrow and rules in favor of the prosecution w/r/t the jury being allowed to consider lesser charges (aggravated assault, possibly aggravated stalking) then him leaving the car is a big deal. I think the state knows they aren't getting murder 2 since they weren't able to prove Zimmerman assaulted Martin beyond a reasonable doubt so they're going to focus on him intentionally seeking Martin after he started running.

How is it a big deal, it wasn't illegal and he wasn't told not to or even advised not to by the time he had left his vehicle. He was relaying information back to a non-emergency operator.
The judge will rule in favor of the prosecution, like they have consistently.

At 7/10/13 09:22 PM, Ceratisa wrote: How is it a big deal, it wasn't illegal and he wasn't told not to or even advised not to by the time he had left his vehicle. He was relaying information back to a non-emergency operator.
The judge will rule in favor of the prosecution, like they have consistently.

Because none of the self defense claims matter if the state can make the argument that Zimmerman assaulted Martin by pursuing him.

Because none of the self defense claims matter if the state can make the argument that Zimmerman assaulted Martin by pursuing him.

pursuit=/= assault, sorry.

Why don't you give your break down of events?

At 7/10/13 09:31 PM, Ceratisa wrote: pursuit=/= assault, sorry.

You don't have to apologize:

"The basic assault charge in Florida is classified as a second degree misdemeanor and carries a potential sentence of 60 days in jail and fines reaching $500.

You may be facing this charge if you are accused of intentionally threatening someone (by word or action) with physical harm. Whether or not you follow through on the threat, it must be possible and put the victim in fear that it is about to happen."

Yes, following someone can absolutely be considered assault in Florida. That is the law.

At 7/10/13 09:34 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 7/10/13 09:31 PM, Ceratisa wrote: pursuit=/= assault, sorry.

You don't have to apologize:

"The basic assault charge in Florida is classified as a second degree misdemeanor and carries a potential sentence of 60 days in jail and fines reaching $500.

You may be facing this charge if you are accused of intentionally threatening someone (by word or action) with physical harm. Whether or not you follow through on the threat, it must be possible and put the victim in fear that it is about to happen."

Yes, following someone can absolutely be considered assault in Florida. That is the law.

A member of the neighborhood following a suspicious person isn't assault. It is NOT illegal to follow someone. If you have prove Zimmerman said something or was truly aggressive in some fashion you should probably be on the stand.

TM had gotten away from Zimmerman, unless you think he openly lied about that during the time of the phone call to the non-emergency number.

I would really appreciate it if you gave your break down of what happened right up to the shooting that fits with expert testimony.

Bao and Miao both confirmed different facts about the gunshot.

Zimmerman sustained multiple blows, the experts testified that it was unlikely that the lacerations on the back of his head both came from the same impact.

Zimmerman had a broken nose and two black eyes.

Mr Good the only witness to part of the altercation (Who could actually see) puts Trayvon Martin on top with Zimmerman on the bottom crying for help. IF you doubt this why didn't TM have injuries since he saw the figure on top striking the one on the bottom.

The use of marijuana likely did have a result on TM's mental state according to the ME.

TM according to Jeantel and Zimmerman's phone call had safety eluded Zimmerman.

TM was on top which isn't even denied by prosecution at this point.

TM actively participated in fights and considered himself to be a gang banger from his own social networking posts and text messages.

Zimmerman's altercation with a civilian dressed officer which was completely dropped was eight years ago.

Zimmerman was at the time borderline obese.

The autopsy report as mentioned showed 3 abrasions on TM's knuckles. The report says these markings could have INFACT have occurred during the altercation.

Please tell me your break down of the events that happened,in particular your theory on how exactly the physical altercation took place.

The fact that he shot TM does not change anything, no one is arguing this point.

He didn't seek him out after he started running he said he didn't know where he was. You seem confused about the time line still

PLEASE give your version of events in detail.

At 7/10/13 10:10 PM, Ceratisa wrote: A member of the neighborhood following a suspicious person isn't assault. It is NOT illegal to follow someone. If you have prove Zimmerman said something or was truly aggressive in some fashion you should probably be on the stand.

TM had gotten away from Zimmerman, unless you think he openly lied about that during the time of the phone call to the non-emergency number.

Read the law. Assault is causing apprehension of danger in someone. If the jury agrees that Zimmerman assaulted Martin by pursuing him, then Zimmerman's self-defense argument won't matter.

He didn't seek him out after he started running he said he didn't know where he was. You seem confused about the time line still

Martin ran, Zimmerman got out and ran after him. That's the bottom line. Had Zimmerman stayed in the car it would have ended there, but the problem arises when once Zimmerman was out of the car and after Martin and then ran into him again. The state is going to make the argument that Martin was scared because he was being stalked. The jury is going to decide that for themselves.

PLEASE give your version of events in detail.

What is the point? Closing arguments are tomorrow. We're not going to change our minds. I'm not spending the next 3 pages getting into the same circular arguments over and over again.

At 7/10/13 10:31 PM, Korriken wrote: you know she is. the state wants to get him with something, anything they can to put him away. Hopefully the jury sees through that move and acquits him on all charges.

Is this what Limbaugh is saying or did you come up with this conspiracy theory on your own?

At 7/11/13 12:46 AM, Feoric wrote:

Read the law. Assault is causing apprehension of danger in someone. If the jury agrees that Zimmerman assaulted Martin by pursuing him, then Zimmerman's self-defense argument won't matter.

A lot of husbands and wives have a potential lawsuit on their hands towards that Cheaters show then.

At 7/11/13 12:46 AM, Feoric wrote: Read the law. Assault is causing apprehension of danger in someone.

G.Z. was not charged with assault, he was charged with murder in the second degree. THAT is what he's being tried for.

aside from the fact that "causing apprehension of danger in someone" can be induced by nearly ANYTHING (e.g. what type of clothing a person wears, which can easily flip the whole "wearing a hoodie is harmless" narrative), they need to prove that:

"the unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree"

...although comically, the same text continues:

"and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084."

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Displ ay_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.0 4.html

[ i just think it's funny that it says "a term of years not exceeding life" as if that's any consolation or true regulation of punishment... cuz, like, a term of years EXCEEDING LIFE is that much harsher of a sentence. like a dude's ghost is gonna stick it out in prison or something. ]

anyway, the prosecution would have had an easier time charging him with manslaughter or some other lesser charge rather than murder in the 2nd degree. an acquittal seems pretty obvious at this point, but hey who knows. i wonder if/where/when shit will pop off once that "not guilty" verdict is read.

Same circular arguments indeed, considering you nor the prosecution ever gave their version.

At 7/10/13 10:31 PM, Korriken wrote: you know she is. the state wants to get him with something, anything they can to put him away. Hopefully the jury sees through that move and acquits him on all charges.

Is this what Limbaugh is saying or did you come up with this conspiracy theory on your own?

I'm sorry is this about Casey case?
Because other search engine results that were found later revealed much more damning evidence. And she still didn't report her child missing for OVER A MONTH.

At 7/11/13 01:04 PM, Korriken wrote: this just in, 3rd degree murder has been tossed out.

Wasn't the child abuse also tossed out?

At 7/11/13 01:43 PM, Korriken wrote: closing arguments have begun.

This closing statement is entirely emotional and they NEVER gave a break down of the actual events.

At 7/11/13 11:54 AM, Korriken wrote: Oh gee, look, I was RIGHT!

You were?

At 7/10/13 10:31 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 7/10/13 08:45 PM, Feoric wrote:

If the judge comes back tomorrow and rules in favor of the prosecution w/r/t the jury being allowed to consider lesser charges (aggravated assault, possibly aggravated stalking) then him leaving the car is a big deal.

you know she is.

Huh.

also, bite me, I don't even listen to Limbaugh and it's not a conspiracy theory.

You made the argument that the judge is going to rule in favor of the prosecution because she has it in for Zimmerman. How is that not a conspiracy?

At 7/11/13 02:27 PM, Ceratisa wrote: This closing statement is entirely emotional and they NEVER gave a break down of the actual events.

Closing arguments during murder trials can go on for days, so it's odd you would critique the state's closing when it's only been going on for such a short period of time.

At 7/11/13 02:27 PM, Ceratisa wrote: This closing statement is entirely emotional and they NEVER gave a break down of the actual events.

Closing arguments during murder trials can go on for days, so it's odd you would critique the state's closing when it's only been going on for such a short period of time.

It's odd you continue to support the state regardless of witness testimony

At 7/11/13 02:46 PM, Ceratisa wrote: It's odd you continue to support the state regardless of witness testimony

I'll support the defense if West tells another knock knock joke during closing.

At 7/11/13 03:02 PM, Korriken wrote: I never said SHE had it in for him. I said the state does, in order to not flare racial tensions. That's the whole reason for the murder charge.

Of course the state does, I'm not arguing that. When you said "you know she is" you had to be referring to the judge.

legit purchase of iced tea and skittles for LEAN.. what?

At 7/11/13 03:08 PM, Korriken wrote: I knew she would be granting the prosecution's request to tack on the lesser charges. Luckily only 1 could stick, that was Manslaughter. the rest were just too absurd even for the judge.

That's included de facto since lesser crimes are included as per Florida law. I believe the state wanted to change the jury instructions to remind them of that. Manslaughter wasn't added in, it was always there.