Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:
Sorry if you're not up to speed on the latest hep cat gossip there RT...

OK thats awesome, I have to say. Its a slam but its so epic its a complement!

okay... that's a good one dude.

Yeah, I would have just said I got shufflepants'd, but I wasn't sure if you guys had seen that yet, so I figured I'd just post it.

Well in my defense I only found out about the opening statement thing about an hour ago.

And Rented Tritium wears shuffle pants. Chimichangas are served warm.

I'm not following the case minute-by-minute but I recall vaguely seeing something along the lines of 'Well, if you're going to bring up his college professor, we're going to go into Trayvon's history of violence and drug use' by the defense.

Implying that this could be further dredged up.

 sourclams wrote:
I'm not following the case minute-by-minute but I recall vaguely seeing something along the lines of 'Well, if you're going to bring up his college professor, we're going to go into Trayvon's history of violence and drug use' by the defense.

Implying that this could be further dredged up.

Judge didn't buy that.

Prosecution is being VERY careful not to open the door to exploring Martin's history.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
I caught a bit of the testimony from another prosecution witness, the Army Capt. who is an instructor on justifiable use of force, or something like that. It was cross examination, and the few minutes I got to see showed him seemingly giving more cred to Z in this scenario. I didn't see any of what the prosecution asked him, so I don't know what reason they brought him up for, but the defense seemed to have his number.

Edit: Ok, I see why the prosecution called him. They were attempting to refute Z's claim that he wasn't familiar with the states self defense law.

Yeah, prosecution called him for that.

Defense, as usual, turned his testimony brilliantly to their advantage and got him to do a long seminar on self-defense laws that seriously favors Zimmerman. I don't think it was that hard to do; he's obviously well-disposed to Zimmerman.

Another one I saw today was the prosecution working its, "Zimmerman carried his gun with one in the chamber and a full mag, this is the sign of an unsafe individual," angle from their opening argument. Surprisingly, a lot of non-gun people buy into this. Fortunately, one of the state's own witnesses - an FDLE forensic specialist this time - got cross-examined on it and stated it was how the gun was designed to be carried, it was how cops carried, etc. etc.

Hell condition one is how I carry my 1911 every day.

I honestly don't see the point in carrying without a round in the chamber and a full mag underneath it.

But you both know what you're talking about when it comes to firearms, and are aware that danger isn't going to honor your requested time-out to rack the slide.

 CptJake wrote:
I honestly don't see the point in carrying without a round in the chamber and a full mag underneath it.

I suppose I could rock a half mag.... but what exactly would that accomplish?

Well...I claimed a camelspider on four rounds I think...the cop got that dog with three....Z got M on one....

Honestly, the one round one kill thing in this case is what makes me believe Zimmerman was not looking for that much trouble and was poorly trained yet defended himself the best he could.

I automatically would have dumped at least two center mass then one into his head. Then if he twitched he would have caught more. I think Z popped a cap then almost crapped himself with the realization of what he had done and the sound of a round actually being fired. I can't imagine only engaging with one round.

A few people on the jury are CCW holders. I'm sure that if this becomes a point of talking between the jurors, they'll bring that up.

I really should hold back my perception of this. After watching LEO getting grilled by Prosecution and questioned by Defense. I've feeling Z, once he pulled the trigger, knew he had a good shot. Fear got replaced by determination to live. M going for the now exposed weapon and the verbal threat by M of "Your going to die tonight"

State's expected to rest next session. Final witnesses are expected to go (the real) medical examiner, Martin's brother, Martin's mother.

Much hay is still being made of the fact that Zimmerman carried with a round in the chamber. I hope like hell the CCW-holding women on the jury set their colleagues to rights regarding that.

In other news, I learned from CNN this morning that Zimmerman's gun was not, in fact, the Kel-Tec that's been shown in court, but instead some variety of Glock. The well-informed anchor told me this despite the clip she was talking about involving two separate individuals clearly naming it as a Kel-Tec. The infographic at the bottom also called it a Glock, so even with over a year to get it right...

Trayvon Martins mother is going to get butchered in the cross examination... she once claimed she believed it was an accident, then she retracted that and called Z a cold blooded killer. She's tried making this a racial issue. She's been all over the media. She's clearly made it out that she wants Z behind bars, and she should have zero credibility on the stand.

I can understand her grief, and I wouldn't expect her to be impartial, and the prosecution is just going to send her out there to get mauled... I feel bad for her.

Why is the family going to the stand? They where not witnesses to the crime, why should they be there, all they will say is "He was a good boy, he may have gotten in trouble a bit but he never hurt no one"
I have 50$ that exact phrase will be said

 djones520 wrote:
Trayvon Martins mother is going to get butchered in the cross examination... she once claimed she believed it was an accident, then she retracted that and called Z a cold blooded killer. She's tried making this a racial issue. She's been all over the media. She's clearly made it out that she wants Z behind bars, and she should have zero credibility on the stand.

I can understand her grief, and I wouldn't expect her to be impartial, and the prosecution is just going to send her out there to get mauled... I feel bad for her.

They are probably doing it to expose the jury to the mother...
Make Martin look like a kid with his whole life ahead of him and hadn't hurt anyone in his entire life and you make ZImmerman look bad. Do that and you stand a better chance of convincing the jury it wasn't self-defence or whatever he's claiming.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Why is the family going to the stand? They where not witnesses to the crime, why should they be there, all they will say is "He was a good boy, he may have gotten in trouble a bit but he never hurt no one"
I have 50$ that exact phrase will be said

She's going to testify that it is Trayvon's voice calling for help on the tape.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 purplefood wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Trayvon Martins mother is going to get butchered in the cross examination... she once claimed she believed it was an accident, then she retracted that and called Z a cold blooded killer. She's tried making this a racial issue. She's been all over the media. She's clearly made it out that she wants Z behind bars, and she should have zero credibility on the stand.

I can understand her grief, and I wouldn't expect her to be impartial, and the prosecution is just going to send her out there to get mauled... I feel bad for her.

They are probably doing it to expose the jury to the mother...
Make Martin look like a kid with his whole life ahead of him and hadn't hurt anyone in his entire life and you make ZImmerman look bad. Do that and you stand a better chance of convincing the jury it wasn't self-defence or whatever he's claiming.

If they do that, then they open the door for the defence to flood the jury with Martin's past. His three school suspensions that year alone, the mysterious amount of womens jewelry they found in his back pack, the drug usage, his internet search history of street fighting, etc... The prosecution doesn't want to touch that with a 10 ft pole. Give the jury a glimmering of an idea that Trayvon was a thug wanna be, and it's all over.

 djones520 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Why is the family going to the stand? They where not witnesses to the crime, why should they be there, all they will say is "He was a good boy, he may have gotten in trouble a bit but he never hurt no one"
I have 50$ that exact phrase will be said

She's going to testify that it is Trayvon's voice calling for help on the tape.

.

That is just stupid, get an audio examiner in there, someone who is trained, have them hear previous recording of martin, and listen to zimmermans voice, then have them anylze the tape

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Why is the family going to the stand? They where not witnesses to the crime, why should they be there, all they will say is "He was a good boy, he may have gotten in trouble a bit but he never hurt no one"
I have 50$ that exact phrase will be said

She's going to testify that it is Trayvon's voice calling for help on the tape.

.

That is just stupid, get an audio examiner in there, someone who is trained, have them hear previous recording of martin, and listen to zimmermans voice, then have them anylze the tape

They did that, they got an FBI analyst in there, he said it was impossible to get an impartial answer. He opened the door for the prosecution to do this though, when he said a family member, or someone close to the people on the tape might be able to tell.

Of course Mom can recognize her son's voice (as far as she is concerned) and is a very sympathetic figure to an all female jury. To beat her up on the cross examination will look bad too. The prosecution would be crazy to not put her on the stand.

 CptJake wrote:
Honestly, the one round one kill thing in this case is what makes me believe Zimmerman was not looking for that much trouble and was poorly trained yet defended himself the best he could.

I agree. That's the fact that solidifies his story for me.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I suppose I could rock a half mag.... but what exactly would that accomplish?

Twice the reloading?

 Seaward wrote:
In other news, I learned from CNN this morning that Zimmerman's gun was not, in fact, the Kel-Tec that's been shown in court, but instead some variety of Glock. The well-informed anchor told me this despite the clip she was talking about involving two separate individuals clearly naming it as a Kel-Tec. The infographic at the bottom also called it a Glock, so even with over a year to get it right...

Sounds like typical journalism, and every gun being called an AK47

 purplefood wrote:
Make Martin look like a kid with his whole life ahead of him and hadn't hurt anyone in his entire life and you make ZImmerman look bad. Do that and you stand a better chance of convincing the jury it wasn't self-defence or whatever he's claiming.

And the Defense will thank them for that because that put's Martin's character on the stand and gives them a way to bring in his less positive attributes

 djones520 wrote:
She's going to testify that it is Trayvon's voice calling for help on the tape.

I suppose the Prosecution don't have much else to lose. The experts said that they couldn't determine who's voice it was, and his father originally said that it wasn't his son's. What happens if the Defense calls Zimmerman's family and they say the voice is their son?

 CptJake wrote:
Of course Mom can recognize her son's voice (as far as she is concerned) and is a very sympathetic figure to an all female jury. To beat her up on the cross examination will look bad too. The prosecution would be crazy to not put her on the stand.

I think that's the play here. Put her on the stand and hope that she gets a rough time on the stand for sympathy.

I don't think it will take any "beating up". She'll just crack and make herself look bad with little effort. One question about her conflicting statements and she'll go all Colonel Jessup on the Defense.

And of course she takes the stand and testifies that is her son. It was "clearly her son". I really hope the jury can see beyond the emotion. If an impartial FBI analyst was unable to make any clear judgement... well then a mother whose been on the record for wanting to see Z conviceted just isn't going to be trustworthy.

This is the hardest part of the trial for me to watch. I'm really feeling for the family right now, this has got to be extremely hard for them.

The prosecution really thought this was going to be a different type of trial from the looks of things. Lots of really oldschool appeals to emotion and stuff.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
The prosecution really thought this was going to be a different type of trial from the looks of things. Lots of really oldschool appeals to emotion and stuff.

They don't have the evidence, so their working on emotion. The weakest type of case IMO, but this is where they'll make it. The defense is going to have to drag it out for a little while now, to help put some time between these testimonies and the juries deliberations.

What we need is that drug from Equilibrium...