Image 01 Image 03

Zimmerman Trial Day 8: Live Video, Analysis of State’s Case & Witnesses

Zimmerman Trial Day 8: Live Video, Analysis of State’s Case & Witnesses

Today we will again be covering the Zimmerman Trial live, all day, with streaming video. Continuing commentary will be posted in the Twitter feed of selected contributors below the first video feed, and breaking news will be added at the bottom of this post.

During the lunch recess, or immediately thereafter, we will post a mid-day update (not just a list of tweets this time!). We’ll then follow up with the usual detailed end-of-day wrap up, including video and embedded Tweets, at the usual time in the evening.

This morning Court is expected to start at 8:300AM to hold a hearing on whether George Zimmerman’s college records and applications to a VA police academy should be admitted. Once that is done, the trial proper will start.

To see yesterday’s end-of-day analysis and video, which describes how Mark O’Mara’s cross-examination of Investigator Serino so severely damaged the State’s theory of the case, click here:

Zimmerman Trial Day 7 Wrap Up: Prosecution recovers a little, prepared to introduce college records

To see yesterday’s mid-day wrap up, which provides analysis and video of the testimony of State witnesses (former Investigator, now) Patrolman Chris Serino, and Federal Air Marshall and self-described Zimmerman best friend Mark Osterman click here:

Zimmerman Update Exclusive — Mid-Day 7 — Serino more ambivalent, Osterman supports self-defense

For all of our prior coverage on day-to-day events in court, as covered here at Legal Insurrection, click here:

ARCHIVE: Zimmerman Trial LIVE coverage all day, every day

For all of our prior coverage on issues specific to the Law of Self Defense as covered at my own blog, click here:

Law of Self Defense Blog: Zimmerman Trial

(NOTE: If you do wander over to the LOSD blog, be sure to come back to Legal Insurrection to comment, as nearly all my time is spent here for the duration of the trial.)

Live Stream Video


[For live-stream video without commentary, see NBC live feed at bottom of this post.]

Twitter Feed:

(My tweets can be identified as coming from @lawselfdefense, or @lawselfdefense2 if I’m in Twitmo–follow both!.)

Live Stream Video Alternative


Tuesday, July 2 Commentary

. . .

Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense,” now available in its just released 2nd Edition, which shows you how to successfully fight the 20-to-life legal battle everyone faces after defending themselves. UPDATE: July 5, 2013 is the LAST DAY to take advantage of the 30% pre-order discount, only $35, plus free shipping. To do so simply visit the Law of Self Defense blog.

BREAKING: “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition” is now also being carried by, at list price but with a commitment for 2-day delivery.  A Kindle version to come within a week or so (I hope).

Many thanks to Professor Jacobson for the invitation to guest-blog on the Zimmerman trial here on Legal Insurrection!

You can follow Andrew on Twitter on @LawSelfDefense (or @LawSelfDefense2 if I’m in Twitmo, follow both!)on Facebook, and at his blog, The Law of Self Defense.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Will the court recess early today?

kentuckyliz | July 3, 2013 at 8:41 am

Tried to follow your LSD2 twitter account but it’s showing

seems Nelson is now going ‘Out There’ on her ruling . She seems very bias to MoM !! Marching orders and Justis ain’t Blind anymore in our country imo ..

If the state is allowed to bring evidence of state of mind to prove their theory, would not the defense also be allowed to bring up TMs past to prove their theory that TM was beating him to a pulp, and knew how to fight?

    kentuckyliz in reply to vaexcel. | July 3, 2013 at 8:58 am

    I would think an adequate defense would be to justify GZ’s perceptions and experiences. If he is accused of profiling, when he reported suspicious casing behavior, then TM’s recent past experience of burglary (tools and stolen goods) for which he was currently suspended from school is relevant. In fact, Miami PD trying to drive down crime stats of young black men–referred back to school instead of dealing with it in juvie. If handled properly, TM would be alive today.

      kentuckyliz in reply to kentuckyliz. | July 3, 2013 at 9:04 am

      If Miami PD didn’t send TM to juvie, and it was just a school suspension, then is it a “prior bad act”? Not bad enough to be in the system!

    Marco100 in reply to vaexcel. | July 3, 2013 at 9:10 am

    Assuming the alleged victim has a past track record as something of a “brawler,” it’s not necessarily the case that this past track record would be admissible UNLESS 1) the prosecution does something which “opens the door” to it or 2) there was a sufficient prior history of TM’s starting confrontations/brawls under similar circumstances whereby it might be a reasonable inference for the jury to draw that TM’s conduct in that particular situation was “habitual.”

    While there may be some evidence that TM, in the past, may have started some fights and/or gotten into some brawls, it’s unclear whether there is actually a solid basis to claim that he was a “habitual brawler,” and it’s unclear that the TM/GZ altercation would neatly fit into a similar pattern or characterization of TM’s prior brawling history.

    Now, if the defense could produce some “concrete” [note I did not say “cement”] evidence of multiple prior altercations between TM and others in reasonably similar circumstances in which TM was the aggressor etc., that might be a better basis for admissablity of the “habit” evidence.

kentuckyliz | July 3, 2013 at 8:55 am

Mine was too, and your main account too. Go unsuspend and don’t respond to anyone or RT anyone. Just post your own comments. h8r attack

Uncle Samuel | July 3, 2013 at 8:59 am

T. Martin’s history and mindset are as relevant to the case as G. Zimmerman’s.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 3, 2013 at 9:03 am

    I’ll go further, if the Judge allows the State to bring Zimmerman’s past to the jury, she must also allow Martin’s past to be presented to the jury.

    Holder’s people want equality, let them have it.

      kentuckyliz in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 3, 2013 at 9:06 am

      I think it is relevant–if it is asserted that GZ is just a racist, then there must be an exploration of if his perceptions and suspicions were justified in this instance. Were his intuitions correct?

Zimm’s prior educational background, desire/lack of desire to be a law enforcement officer, knowledge of SYG, and so forth, are all completely irrelevant. In fact, the ONLY reason the State wishes to introduce this sort of ephemera is specifically to create unfair prejudice in the minds of the jurors. While it shouldn’t be permitted in evidence, this sort of evidence has a similar chance of backfiring on the State as prior evidence they’ve introduced. Someone with criminal justice/LEO training would arguably be LESS likely rather than MORE likely to misunderstand the parameters of the circumstances under which deadly physical force might be justifiably used in self-defense. “I wanted to be a police officer, I learned some of the course work, I was rejected for employment as an LEO, therefore…it follows that I will use what I learned to perpetrate crimes.” Maybe if we are talking about the Riddler or the Joker, but….

    kentuckyliz in reply to Marco100. | July 3, 2013 at 9:07 am

    Sounds like it’s yet another reason to add to the pile of grounds for reversal on appeal if there’s a conviction.

      Marco100 in reply to kentuckyliz. | July 3, 2013 at 9:17 am

      I agree that it is probably grounds for reversal if permitted in evidence without more to justify it. The “more” to justify it would likely have to involve some sort of expert psychological witness to testify to a reasonable degree of psychological probability (or perhaps a reasonable doubt, I’m not clear on the standard for submitting such evidence to the jury), that would explain the invisible workings of Zimm’s mind, that would have converted his 1) knowledge from LEO coursework + 2) rage at being rejected as an LEO into a pathological witches’ brew of hatred for random burglary suspects who appeared to have been “casing” homes in Zimm’s community.

      Of course any testimony of that nature would be pure “junk science” and speculation, esp. since the State hasn’t done any actual psychological evals. of Zimm. So probably not even admissible as reliant on inadequate foundation.

      On the other hand does the good Dr. Rao also have a psychology or psychiatry credential? I’m sure she would happily be available to be re-called on behalf of the State in that regard….after she gets done washing her feet in some inappropriate receptacle.

leftbrainfemale | July 3, 2013 at 9:03 am

Clearly Mantei does not have a CCW; One thing that was drilled through our heads by our instructor was that you do not refer to your firearm as a “gun” or “weapon”, but has a “firearm”. It is simply terminology which carries a less inflammatory and more professional example to others.

The judge cuts MOM off in mid argument after just three minutes with a snide: “So your argument is relevancy,” and then the prosecution gets up, and she allows him to argue for over half an hour.
How is this impartial?

    Marco100 in reply to divemedic. | July 3, 2013 at 9:22 am

    Maybe the judge completely understands the lack of relevancy issue and doesn’t really need to hear more than 3 minutes whereas the prosecutor is waiving a complicated web of B.S. and she wants to hear him out?

      divemedic in reply to Marco100. | July 3, 2013 at 9:33 am

      But whether or not the judge is aware of it is irrelevant. The full argument must be heard, if for no other reason to have it in the record, so that it may be considered by an appellate court.

        Marco100 in reply to divemedic. | July 3, 2013 at 9:41 am

        I believe that if the trial judge cuts off the defense attorney’s full objection/argument he is still allowed to elaborate it on the appeal. However irrelevant is irrelevant. I’m not sure there really needs to be too much elaboration on it, since there’s really been no proffer that someone’s prior school work (or shoe horn) makes it “more likely than not” that he possessed a criminal state of mind at the time of the homicide.

I hope nothing ever goes down in my neighborhood.

I have a few Tom Clancey novels on the bookshelf, and have watched a few episodes of CSI Miami.

When they find no evidence of me be being at a crime scene, it’s clearly because I know how to cover my tracks.

I can’t believe this prosecution dude…he even referred to the Judge as “sir” as he stumbled through his defense of his proffer. He is still saying flat out that prior knowledge of the law implies you know how to lie. WTF?

They say Zimmerman was a “wannabe cop” like it was a bad thing. When was wanting to be a cop considered a character flaw?

    Marco100 in reply to Kitty. | July 3, 2013 at 9:21 am

    Depends on what sub-culture(s) you hail from and which sub-culture(s)the prosecution is trying to play to.

    Some sub-cultures in our society (with greater/lesser degree of justification) perceive LEO’s being motivated by improper motivations and lacking in ethics. I’m not saying I generally agree with that but it is what it is.

Uncle Samuel | July 3, 2013 at 9:08 am

George Zimmerman’s weight gain may be connected to the psychological trauma of both the events of that night and the threats by Sharpton, the New Black Panther Party and their ilk, who are the current most hateful racists, and betrayal of the people he had tried to befriend and defend.

He may be on medication for depression.

    kentuckyliz in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 3, 2013 at 9:10 am

    The constant stress he must be experiencing since that night would release stress hormones including cortisol that cause weight gain and retention especially around the middle.

    raider3 in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 3, 2013 at 9:29 am

    I had never considered that he may be on medication now. Excellent insight.

kentuckyliz | July 3, 2013 at 9:08 am

I think I need to warn my college’s Criminal Justice program students that their studies mean they never get to claim self-defense if assaulted.

    Marco100 in reply to kentuckyliz. | July 3, 2013 at 9:24 am

    This is similar to Kitty Genovese. Here you have two men in a brawl, several people become aware of it, no one actively intervenes.

    Everyone’s afraid and with good reason. Look what happened, one guy gets killed, the other prosecuted, there’s no upside to getting involved is there?

The fact that the state thinks this evidence is important, let alone relevant, shows how weak its evidence on mental state. I expect that the Judge is going to rule in favor of the state. Perhaps she is following the rule that a judge should always rule in favor on the side that she knows is going to lose.

I am waiting for the judge to resort to the legal premise that they are ruling against the defense because the defendant is a big doo doo head.

Listening to the State argue introduction of the Zimmerman college stuff confirms my observation that you can rationalize anything.

In Florida, what sentence do you get if you’re convicted of profiling?

Uncle Samuel | July 3, 2013 at 9:13 am

Mark O’Mara’s argument against admission of Zimmerman’s school records/history are right on.

Well, that right there will make for new appellate case-law if Zimmerman is convicted.

Big question: is this harmful error? A close call.

My position is that it is vacuous.

    Marco100 in reply to Ragspierre. | July 3, 2013 at 9:31 am

    The State is scrod unless they have a psychologist or psychiatrist testify to the connection between Zimm’s school records, employment background, etc. and why this sort of background would create a hateful attitude towards 1) racial minorities 2) burglary suspects casing GZ’s neighborhood or 3) racial minorities casing GZ’s neighborhood.

    There’s no evidence that GZ’s past school/work efforts were premeditated so as to give him “training” in how to avoid conviction or capture for a future homicide that he was then contemplating committing against a then-unknown victim.

    Apparently the State wants to analogize taking LEO coursework to a serial killer’s purchasing of rope and duct tape in anticipation of his crimes? I’m not seeing the relevance connection at all.

    Of course the defense attys are good enough to bring out all the contrary equally-if-not-more-believable inferences from this “evidence.”

    Methinks in its closing arg the State is going to totally ignore the evidence and just make a completely improper emotional and prejudicial argument and if they win or lose not care about it, just so long as there are sound bites showing the prosecutor telling the jurors that GZ is a horrible hateful racially-prejudiced murderous wannabe frustrated cop.

      Ragspierre in reply to Marco100. | July 3, 2013 at 9:54 am

      Well, in reality, a closing in pretty much any criminal case is carefully charged with emotion. We don’t complain when we don’t like the defendant.

      IFFFFF the State departs from the evidence, I would certainly be on my feet objecting. It is one of the few things that would impel me to object during a close (and I have, do, and will).

      Mister Natural in reply to Marco100. | July 3, 2013 at 10:04 am

      “the state is scrod…”?
      Scrod is a term for whitefish that has been split and boned for sale.
      well if the state’s case is scrod then at least it would be good for sonething

Uncle Samuel | July 3, 2013 at 9:23 am

This trial and case has been a travesty, both inside and outside of the courtroom from the outset.

It is also a proof of the brain damage that the incongruent illogical irreconcilable cognitions of PC/leftism inflict on the brains of its adherents.

CENTFLAMIKE | July 3, 2013 at 9:24 am

This is going to backfire on the prosecution. Their theory (which is weak anyway) is that GZ is an UNTRAINED cop-wannabe. They are now going to prove that he knows how to identify suspicious behavior without racial-profiling, how to wait for backup before intentionally putting yourself in a dangerous position, and how to properly use a gun to defend yourself. Nothing in the course work taught him how to lie under oath. If he knows what to SAY to make it sound like self-defense, he also knows what to DO to actually make it self defense.

HLN is biased. However, Judge Alex is giving far better and far more objective analysis than the biased, bearded attorney on the local coverage.

The prosecution is trying to kill Zimmerman’s character, since they have no evidence, no case.
How is George Zimmerman’s bad or good credit relevant to this case? They are such hypocrites!
If this is going to be about character, let’s dig out TM’s school records. Let’s also look into his tweeter, facebook, etc.

One thing is certain, no one will blame Judge Nelson when GZ is acquitted.

    Exiliado in reply to myiq2xu. | July 3, 2013 at 9:51 am

    I will.

    txantimedia in reply to myiq2xu. | July 3, 2013 at 10:12 am

    One of two things will happen now. He will be found not guilty. Or he will be found guilty and the verdict will be reversed and remanded on appeal.

    Apparently that is the state’s goal?

How does using a picture of a shoe horn not cause a judge to criticize the State for such juvenile tactics? If MOM did this, he would have been criticized by the judge.

Correct me if I am wrong, but is the state’s case now that GZ had prior education so that is “evidence” of his potential to lie about the incident….therefore that he DID lie?

MOM makes a very valid analogy about a first-grade Valentine’s card and the judge tells him to stay on point. State puts up a picture of a shoe horn and it is fine.

Every know this has turned into a dog and pony show.

It all comes down to this is in the end:

Do the jurors believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Trayvon Martin was screaming for help before he was shot.

    Exiliado in reply to Browndog. | July 3, 2013 at 9:53 am

    No,no, no, no….

    It was a dog and pony show at the beginning as it continues to be now.

    DerHahn in reply to Browndog. | July 3, 2013 at 10:14 am

    That’s one possibility. I think (just reading the info here, not a lawyer) that the State knows that the jury is extremely unlikely to convict on Murder 2. Since the manslaughter charge is practically a given (nobody sane disputes that GZ shot TM) it looks like they want to kick up enough sand so that a loudly pro-TM juror can confuse the rest of the jury into discounting self-defense.

I am not a lawyer but it seems to me that the judge’s obvious bias sets everything up for an appeal if GZ is found guilty. She consistently whores to the prosecution.

One thing I don’t believe I’ve seen/heard (although I certainly haven’t listened to all the testimony) is the phrase “casing” or “casing behavior.”

That is, to describe GZ’s perception of his observations of TM’s behavior prior to the altercation on that fateful/fatal evening.

“Ma’am does your educational institution provide this coursework to teach people how to commit homicides and get away with it?”

Uncle Samuel | July 3, 2013 at 9:39 am

It’s beginning to look like George Zimmerman’s only hope for justice is to convert to Judaism and call on the Mossad to whisk him out of the country and give him a new name and job.

For the amount of vile black muslim racist hatred focused on him, he might as well be Jewish.

    Mister Natural in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 3, 2013 at 10:09 am

    let’s not forget the friends and followers of the likes of the rev jeremiah wright, et al, and so on and so forth

Probably a harmless error, but definitely an error. This is classic character evidence by prior acts, which is always inadmissible. The prosecution and judge tries to get it in as “state of mind” evidence instead, but this isn’t state of mind evidence. State of mind evidence would be testimony from the officer reporting that Zimmerman sounded like he was following a script that he might have learned in a criminology course, or a Zimmerman statement that he knew he was in the right because of his classes. This is evidence of a prior act to show a character trait (vigilantism) as evidence that Zimmerman acted in accord with that trait on the night in question. Fla. Ev. code 90.404 should exclude the evidence if that’s the prosecution’s reason for offering it.

Leave the witness alone, West. All you’re going to do is get in testimony that bolsters the State’s case.

leftbrainfemale | July 3, 2013 at 9:44 am

So, all of this testimony being allowed with regard to the character of GZ, will this now be allowed to be brought out?

Travesty. This is beyond the pale…

Captain Carter: “I taught a very dry and boring criminal law course just like every other law course taught throughout the history of the world.” LOL

The Capt. is a good witness. The jury will like him.

The State seems to be crossing some lies, WRT questions of law.

That MAY be VERY useful to the defense.

God, West is awful. He should be using this witness to get in as much of law of self-defense as he can. Who cares about a detailed history of the witness’ background.

    Marco100 in reply to rhorton1. | July 3, 2013 at 10:03 am

    West can’t do that, at least not directly. The judge tells the jury what the law is or is not, not a witness.

    That’s why the prosecutor backed off during his direct. This witness was called to tell the jury that George Z. was thoroughly taught the FL law of self defense and then deliberately misapplied it or ignored it.

    That requires more of a stretch than even Reed Richards could manage though.

      rhorton1 in reply to Marco100. | July 3, 2013 at 10:11 am

      I think the defense has a strong argument that Zimmerman’s knowledge of self-defense law is relevant to his state of mind on the night of the incident: to show his actions were in conformity with the law of self-defense as he was taught.

        txantimedia in reply to rhorton1. | July 3, 2013 at 10:20 am

        rhorton, no offense buddy, but you are a friggin idiot. Do you SERIOUSLY believe that when someone is committing aggravated battery on you that your mind wanders to the self defense laws and you carefully consider whether or not they apply in your situation? My God man! When you’re under stress you’re thinking of one thing and one thing only, how do I get out of this situation? The friggin law is the LAST thing on your mind.

    Aridog in reply to rhorton1. | July 3, 2013 at 10:21 am

    Whoopsie…West is actually doing just what you, rHorton1, said he should.

LOL I’m not sure why the judge is letting a witness tell the jury what the law of self-defense is, or isn’t, even if it’s cross and the state opened this particular door.

OK I hereby declare the judge has completely lost control of this trial. West is now crossing this witness on what is and is not a statute? And specifically SYG?) LOL The judge is forced to sit mute because she allowed the state to open this door in the first place, but….she should call counsel up to a sidebar and get this trial back on track.

    Ragspierre in reply to Marco100. | July 3, 2013 at 10:16 am

    I think the judge is letting the State eat the mud pie it made.

    If West takes the que the judge just gave him, all he need do is couch his questions as, “What you taught in your course”.


      Marco100 in reply to Ragspierre. | July 3, 2013 at 10:29 am

      Despite the court’s feeble admonishments only to testify as to what he taught in his coursework, Capt. Carter is effectively testifying on behalf of the defense as an “expert witness on the law of self defense.” LOL. /trial

Here’s the sidebar…about time…


The Captain wasn’t even presented as an expert witness on Florida law…was he? Now West is crossing him as such.

(Question: What does any of this testimony have to do with anything the jury needs to decide?)

“When you have a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm.”

Subjective/objective standard.

“Does getting your head bashed in the concrete by an unknown assailant at night meet that standard?”

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Marco100. | July 3, 2013 at 10:44 am

    “Does getting your head bashed in the concrete by an unknown assailant at night *who is shouting racial hate epithets, death threats, preventing you from breathing, while people came outside to see, but would not help you* meet that standard?”

    O’Mara and West must list each and every element of Martin’s assault and repeat them often.

I assume the preclusion of speaking objections applies to the defense only?

    Ragspierre in reply to Fabi. | July 3, 2013 at 10:25 am

    “Many states have rules and statutes that provide that an objection made in court or in a deposition must be made specifically and concisely rather than in an argumentative or suggestive manner. Objections made in violation of these rules are known as “speaking objections”. These objections proceed beyond what is necessary to give the grounds on which the objection is based. This is often done by the attorney in order to coach a witness to say a particular thing.”

    Hard to see how the State is coaching the Capt.

      Fabi in reply to Ragspierre. | July 3, 2013 at 10:41 am

      Judge Nelson has shot down the defense a few times for these types of objections – they may have been of the substance you noted. Thanks for the clarification.

West does not no how to ask a question, this area is wide-open to him. Jeez.

    Aridog in reply to rhorton1. | July 3, 2013 at 10:26 am

    Come on, the judge has interrupted to limit the scope of the Captain’s testimony to what he taught….and West has done a great job of leading the witness to say “what you would explain, yada yada” …and then getting him to testify to a straw man scenario.

    Sez I in reply to rhorton1. | July 3, 2013 at 11:03 am

    Are trying to build a case for a new trial based on incompetent counsel, or just PO’d because the state’s witness is supporting Zimmerman’s case?

Uncle Samuel | July 3, 2013 at 10:21 am

This is not a Stand Your Ground case – Zimmerman was not standing and was not able to stand.

This is not a Duty to Retreat Case – Zimmerman was overpowered, pinned down and could not retreat.

This is a Right to Self-Defense and a Use of Deadly Force to SAVE Your Life Case.

And, this is a no other recourse case, because one would come to help him!

And this is a Gun Control, Racial hate-mongering and Election Year Politicization case!

This is a Leftist Political Circus Case!

Captain Carter, yet another disastrous witness–FOR THE STATE that is.

txantimedia | July 3, 2013 at 10:23 am

This is hilarious. Absolutely hilarious. First the prosecution works hard to develop the defense’s theory of the case. Now they have opened the door to allow the defense to carefully explore the law of self defense as it applies in Florida through the pretense that they are discussing what the Captain taught in the classroom.

The prosecution has to be thinking that this might have been a huge faux pas to open this door.

    kentuckyliz in reply to txantimedia. | July 3, 2013 at 10:42 am

    IKR? State moves to recess for the day so they can go have a good cry. Just kidding.

    donhetzler in reply to txantimedia. | July 3, 2013 at 10:56 am

    i think the defense laid the groundwork for defending zimmerman’s claim that he didn’t know what the stand your ground defense was. they mentioned that “stand your ground” is a nickname, and not necessarily mentioned in the text book as the “stand your ground” law.

    and i’m glad they finally mentioned that you don’t have to be beaten to be in fear for your life. the most amount of times i want to get hit is zero. there are videos all over youtube of dudes getting ko’d in one punch, and if you fall and hit your head, you die sometimes. that testimony yesterday, and the media focusing on the opinion that zimmerman’s injuries were insignificant is ridiculous. when your head is bouncing off the concrete, that is significant, no matter how hard, you aren’t going to be thinking to yourself, “ok, that one wasn’t that hard, oh, now that one WAS hard”. i’ve been in a couple of fights, even had my head bounced off the concrete, not fun, and extremely serious when it’s happening.

      donhetzler in reply to donhetzler. | July 3, 2013 at 10:57 am

      when i say he didn’t know what it was, i mean that he didn’t realize that that was specifically what they were talking about.

      memomachine in reply to donhetzler. | July 3, 2013 at 11:13 am

      As an aside to people who might not know the most dangerous weapon inside of an arm’s reach is actually a knife. If you’re within 5′ of someone with a knife and who has any decent level of training in knife fighting then even being armed with a gun won’t help you very much.

      Knives are very fast on slashing and stabbing. And with a quick lunge a person can cover a lot of ground very quickly. Plus there are no jamming, loading, reloading or accuracy issues as with a pistol.

      Aside from a knife a good weapon are fists and open hands but that requires a lot of training to be good at it. I used to do Aki-Jujitsu (hybrid Akido & Jujitsu style) and if you were anywhere within reach of myself and my fellow trainees then your day was about to get very bad.

      The key point is that just because someone doesn’t have a pistol in their hand does not mean that the situation is not very dangerous. If you don’t know the capabilities of the other person then you must assume the worst.

    Humphreys Executor in reply to txantimedia. | July 3, 2013 at 11:39 am

    The prosecution is giving an excellent seminar on how NOT to try a criminal case. And the Judge is remarkably accommodating. I’m not watching it, just following the tweets. Entertaining as all get out. Thanks.

Good point!
You don’t need to wait until you are actually injured or dead to defend yourself.

THAT is something the jury needs to know!

txantimedia | July 3, 2013 at 10:25 am

West: “In fact, you don’t have to wait until you’re almost dead to defend yourself?”
Captain: “No (chuckle), I wouldn’t advise that.”


Whoa! Just tuned in, but this guy testifying about self defense and what “reasonable” is a HUGE win for the defense!!!

To have someone sit there and explain what reasonable self defense is SO much better for the defense than just a cold jury instruction.

I didn’t see the direct, but I can’t imagine the state got anything worth letting the jury hear all this.

God West is awful. He should be going zing, zing, zing, right through this witness using leading questions to make his points and keep the witness under control.

    txantimedia in reply to rhorton1. | July 3, 2013 at 10:30 am

    It’s confirmed. You’re an idiot.

      Mister Natural in reply to txantimedia. | July 3, 2013 at 10:34 am

      the idiocy of HORTON HEARS A WHO has been established beyond a reasonable doubt for several days now.
      And by his own statements he hes revealed himself to be a BIGOT

    MegK in reply to rhorton1. | July 3, 2013 at 10:40 am

    What? That witness just ended the state’s case. He took away “Zimmerman started it” and “His injuries weren’t that bad” in one fell swoop. The state has what left now? “Zimmerman wanted to be a cop”? Good luck with that.

      kentuckyliz in reply to MegK. | July 3, 2013 at 10:44 am

      Fork stuck in case–it’s done. This case has been one giant facepalm for the state. This witness has been a ginormous facepalm for the state. I think I see Mantei’s lower lip quivering. Someone get him a box of Kleenex.

    Matt in FL in reply to rhorton1. | July 3, 2013 at 10:44 am

    @rhorton1: So I’m curious, with all the “O’Mara/West is an idiot” comments you’ve made over the past week, when they eventually win, is your line going to be “Despite the astonishing incompetence of…” or are you going to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe they know what they’re doing and you’re full of shit?

      Uncle Samuel in reply to Matt in FL. | July 3, 2013 at 10:54 am

      Naw, Horton’s going to join Obama’s sons down to the Best Buy to grab a 50″ flat screen, an iPhone, then hit the sports store to get himself some LeBron Jameses. Then he’s gonna stash all that in his Momma’s basement and go burn some cars, bash some Jews and whites and poop on the street.
      He’ll meet with his drug dealer or the local pimp so he can come down and can get some rest to be ready for the next Obama sons call to action.

        Uncle Samuel in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 3, 2013 at 10:56 am

        Oh yeah, before he goes to sleep, he’ll post his exploits online so the dudes and dudesses at his community service and probation meetings will all go, like, ‘Oh Horton, You the man.”

          Uncle Samuel in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 3, 2013 at 10:58 am

          Then he’ll kick back for a few days and wait for his check from Uncle Ben C. for his work in the comments sections here and elsewhere.

    When rhorton1 starts attacking the defense, it means the defense is scoring BIG in the trial. You can tell when the prosecution is failing by rhorton1’s tweets!

The prosecution is panicking.
This witness is totally destroying their case.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Exiliado. | July 3, 2013 at 8:26 pm

    I’m confuzzed. Do FL DA offices not have investigators who go out and interview these witnesses prior to trial?

txantimedia | July 3, 2013 at 10:29 am

This trial get’s more bizarre by the minute. Now West is arguing the facts of his case within the context of a hypothetical that the Captain might have taught his class.

The prosecution objects, but West got it in, and I doubt seriously that his point was lost on the jury.

Not only is he destroying the idea that Martin could have been defending himself, but he’s supporting the idea that even if Zimmerman started the confrontation he still had the right to defend himself when disproportionate force is exerted against him, which is certainly the case with Martin’s attack on him.

The prosecution just keeps on giving and giving and giving.

Reading the live twitter feed above…

…and laughing myass off!

Is “Objection! [stamps feet and balls fists] Stop using our witnesses to your benefit!” a valid objection in this court?

    memomachine in reply to Matt in FL. | July 3, 2013 at 11:19 am

    I have to assume that the prosecutors are all skilled attorneys. So how is this actually happening? Couldn’t anybody determine before the trial that this would be the outcome?

    Strange I can accept. Odd I can handle. Strange, odd and bizarre is too much to accept in one sitting.

Mister Natural | July 3, 2013 at 10:32 am

the prosecution spends most of their time trying to get the toothpaste back in the tube.
when they are sent to hell on judgment day i hope THEY are sentenced to do it for all eternity

So the prosecution wants it in evidence that GZ learned about self defense as applied in Florida, and wants to use the fact that he learned it against him. Then, they want to object when the defense then asks exactly what was learned. After all, if you want to use the class as evidence, then what was covered in that class is relevant. The fact that it hurts the prosecution’s case is something that the prosecution should have thought of before they introduced it.
I pointed out yesterday that this would probably work to the benefit of the defense.

Not to toot my hoprn too much, but yesterday at 3:36 I commented:
This is an interesting argument about whether the course work is admissible. It’s a double-edged sword for the prosecution which wants to suggest that Zimmerman tailored his statements to support a claim of self-defense. But the defense will be able to get before the jury the principles of self-defense which as of yet have not been explained to the jury. Remember West was stopped in his opening statement from talking about the law.

legacyrepublican | July 3, 2013 at 10:36 am

West at the post “not guilty” press conference …

As a tear comes down his cheek, West says, “and I would like to thank the prosecution for making all the wonderful testimony that they would have blocked supporting my client’s actions had they been competent possible.”

I thought wanting to be a cop was a good thing. Too bad Zimmerman wasn’t a crips wannabe.

    Browndog in reply to roppert. | July 3, 2013 at 10:42 am

    I don’t think the State wants to prove Zimmerman always wanted to be a cop.

    They are trying to prove that Zimmerman always wanted to be a dirty cop.

      kentuckyliz in reply to Browndog. | July 3, 2013 at 10:47 am

      There is zero evidence of that, with GZ’s community service, getting justice for the black homeless man Ware, tender Catholic conscience that didn’t even know that self-defense is morally licit, etc.

    Harperman in reply to roppert. | July 3, 2013 at 11:29 am

    I get the distinct impression that it was Trevon who was a Crips wannabe. LOL Is his “gangsta education” admissible?

I’d make a horrid juror. Mantei just irritates me on general appearance and demeanor. Smiles at inappropriate times, fails to complete a concept in his questions…poorly plays for melodrama. If I had to listen to him very much he’d have a very hard time convincing me whether it was day or night…

    Matt in FL in reply to Aridog. | July 3, 2013 at 10:41 am

    I agree, Aridog. I really dislike the way Mantei comes off in this trial. With the random weird smiles and the sorta-confrontational tone, he comes off and sneaky and underhanded, even when I’m certain he’s not actively acting that way. His general demeanor makes it easy to see him as the architect of all the “dirty tricks” the prosecution has pulled, even that’s an unwarranted conclusion.

      Marco100 in reply to Matt in FL. | July 3, 2013 at 10:46 am

      Mantei’s facial expressions are a reflection of “cognitive dissonance.” He’s a smart man and must know what’s happening–he’s driving a semi into a bridge abutment.

      The conscious mind has only so much control. The facial mannerisms are a reflection of the inner conflict.

        kentuckyliz in reply to Marco100. | July 3, 2013 at 10:50 am

        A prosecutor asks another prosecutor about GZ being a cop wannabe, as if that’s a bad thing. Prosecutors are cop wannabes with law degrees. Otherwise they’d be defenders. They love state power like the police like police power. They are all in the same club.

        Matt in FL in reply to Marco100. | July 3, 2013 at 10:50 am

        @Marco100 re: Mantei… That’s actually a really good point. Nobody (well, nobody except rhorton1) is going to claim that anyone at either table is stupid. All of them try to get through this a different way. BDLR seems to get through it by bluster. Mantei may have adopted the “Smile while you’re eating the shit sandwich, even if it shows that your teeth are brown” method. I haven’t seen enough of Guy to get a read on him.

Mister Natural | July 3, 2013 at 10:42 am

Dear Doctor J:
The site is great!
Please add an edit function to the comments section.
It’s, IMHO, preferable to the preview fct.

    Browndog in reply to Mister Natural. | July 3, 2013 at 10:45 am

    No pencils with erasers ’round here.

    Here’s your permanent marker. Make it count, or suffer the embarrassment.

      Matt in FL in reply to Browndog. | July 3, 2013 at 10:47 am

      I do the New York Times Crossword in ink, Bitchez!

      Sunday, too!

      Go big or go home.

      (Am I doin’ it rite?)

        Mister Natural in reply to Matt in FL. | July 3, 2013 at 11:02 am

        but you put more than one letter in each box, if need be. Right?

        TheSitRep in reply to Matt in FL. | July 3, 2013 at 11:13 am

        Ha ha, my wife uses a pen on crosswords and says using a pencil is low brow she can knock the NYT sunday during a trip to the head.

          Mister Natural in reply to TheSitRep. | July 3, 2013 at 11:31 am

          Whew! What a relief. At first glance I thought you stated that your wife could do the NYT crossword while “giving you head”.
          Better check my screen resolution

        Mister Natural in reply to Matt in FL. | July 3, 2013 at 11:55 am

        well, i know that used to be pretty hard to do, but i have no knowledge of it’s current degree of difficulty as I have not tried it lately , not having a need to wrap fish for about 20 years

      Mister Natural in reply to Browndog. | July 3, 2013 at 11:01 am

      oh have mercy on me browndog.
      next thing you’ll be telling me is i’ve got to type in cursive.
      i’m getting out my homework assignment book and will write:
      remember to use the preview function, remember to use the preview function….
      50 times
      & for those with a movie memory:
      all work and no play makes jack a dull boy(here’s johnny)

So, we’ve proven Zimmerman wanted to be a cop. Something that could have easily been established by the fact that he was pursuing a degree in CRIMINAL JUSTICE. But instead, the state decides to put up a (young black male) former law professor to clearly explain to the jury exactly why Zimmerman shot someone in self defense. Great job!

    Ragspierre in reply to MegK. | July 3, 2013 at 10:47 am

    AND the Capt. LOVED Zimmerman.

    And the jury will LOVE the Capt.

    ALLLLLLLLLLLL good…!!!

Note how O’Mara essentially blew off the “drive-along” testimony.

STRONG signal of contempt for this nonsense to the jury!

    kentuckyliz in reply to Ragspierre. | July 3, 2013 at 10:56 am

    I am a counselor for a community/technical college with a criminal justice program. In career counseling, I recommend job shadowing and observation all the time, to test out and confirm career decisions. I help set them up and tell students to ask for these things and blame me (“It’s a for class assignment”–in their comfort zone). 2010 was when GZ was in or about to start SCC classes. If the ridealong app were a concern, I’d hint to defense to check and see if it were recommended by a SCC counselor or CRJ instructor, or if it were for a class assignment or internship or practicum or extra credit points for a class. All legitimate. I even tell CRJ students where to work out to get in shape for the physical testing, where all the law enforcement people work out. Build your network in the weight room.

I’m reminded of the 2012 election. Many conservatives, myself included, were convinced by several factors, primarily that polls for decades had shown a liberal bias, that Romney was actually leading. Apparently, the Romneys believed that, and Rove was clinging to his beliefs long after everybody else had called the race. As it turned out, the mob was playing by a different set of rules. The billion dollar misinformation campaign had suppressed the typical Republican turnout, whereas 17,000 people in Philadelphia voted for the One vs zero votes for Romney (or in other words, the now normal amount of voter fraud). The most incompetent national thug in the last 300 years won a second term easily.

So although I’m amused by the “incompetence” of the prosecution, it occurs to me that they are probably playing by a different set of rule. Personally, I think they are playing for a hung jury, but it could be something different that I can’t even imagine, since like most here, I have values and integrity that people like the prosecutors hold in contempt.

Bottom line is that the happy chit chat about the prosecution making the case for Z’s acquittal is 1980’s thinking. The mob has something different in mind and whatever it is, their actions are directed toward what THEY want, not what traditional, decent human beings want.

    Matt in FL in reply to donmc. | July 3, 2013 at 10:53 am

    I was on the Nate Silver bandwagon from day 1. I knew Romney’s goose was cooked, so I did everything I could to encourage like-minded individuals to get out and vote. I was met with limited success.

    Marco100 in reply to donmc. | July 3, 2013 at 10:54 am

    IMO Romney’s main problem as a politician has always been that for some reason he comes across as “wooden,” “cold”, and/or “robotic” on a television screen. (I don’t know if he’s that way IRL, I’ve never met the man.)

    Since the “swing” portion of the electorate tends to make decisions rather impulsively and hence emotionally, that “quality” that Romney seems to have, is a big negative in a close election in which a deliberate strategy of his opposition was to emotionally inflame the electorate.

    Nixon had the same sort of problem of not coming across as well as Kennedy on the televised debates in 1960, not due to substance but due to style or appearance.

    Romney may just be too “cold” for the medium.

      Uncle Samuel in reply to Marco100. | July 3, 2013 at 11:21 am

      Wrong ‘c’ word. It’s corrupt.

      Romney is a typical corrupt politician with a good family image to cover for him.

      donmc in reply to Marco100. | July 3, 2013 at 11:54 am

      The right c-word is “captive”. Romney was a captive of his consultants. I don’t agree with the prior poster that he was corrupt; quite the opposite, in my opinion. But it was/is obvious that he was a man who had trained himself to depend on his associates and employees, since he had made a fortune doing so. The business he was in was not a eureka business. One bright guy with a bright idea wasn’t the secret. It took hundreds of bright people working together. (I also think it was a horrible business for a wannabe politician, but that’s another topic.)

      So when Romney got into politics, he naturally assumed that the political consultants were people worthy of his trust. He depended on them, since they supposedly were expert in a field that he wasn’t. Big mistake. Romney probably has 30 IQ points on Reagan, but on that topic, Romney was a lot smarter about trusting his own instincts, probably because Reagan had a core set of political beliefs that Romney simply doesn’t have. That doesn’t make Romney a bad person, just an unsuccessful politician.

        Uncle Samuel in reply to donmc. | July 3, 2013 at 12:19 pm

        I’m referring to business and campaign tactics and false pretenses.

        We all know Romney’s record and that his governorship were the model for Obamacare and for the tactics of the Obama presidency.

    kentuckyliz in reply to donmc. | July 3, 2013 at 10:59 am

    You posted this AFTER watching Carter’s testimony? Rilly? Obama looked as surprised on election night as TM was when GZ managed to get to his gun first. “You got it?!” “I won?!”

    txantimedia in reply to donmc. | July 3, 2013 at 11:24 am

    You have certainly established your bona fides as a genuine pessimist. However, even pessimism should be based on facts.

    The billion dollar misinformation campaign had suppressed the typical Republican turnout, whereas 17,000 people in Philadelphia voted for the One vs zero votes for Romney (or in other words, the now normal amount of voter fraud).

    Voter fraud did not win the election for Obama. Romney got 3 million fewer votes than Obama. Voter fraud on that scale would be obvious.

    Bottom line is that the happy chit chat about the prosecution making the case for Z’s acquittal is 1980′s thinking. The mob has something different in mind and whatever it is, their actions are directed toward what THEY want, not what traditional, decent human beings want.

    You’ve forgotten one thing. The jury is not part of the so-called “mob”.

      donmc in reply to txantimedia. | July 3, 2013 at 11:43 am

      No, I’ve established by credentials as a realist.

      People who think the prosecution is a pack of idiots are living in la-la land.

Next witness: Barack Obama

“The little chubby smiling fella could have been my son!”

    kentuckyliz in reply to Browndog. | July 3, 2013 at 11:01 am

    Yeah…GZ is multiracial. BHO is 1/2 black and GZ is 1/4 black. Add that together and it’s 3/4. Wondering what alienation Hispanic voters could take from this AA community hatred of a Hispanic man.

Next Witness: James Clapper

“Here at the NSA, we have proof George Zimmerman used a racial epitaph during a 4:21 minute phone call 4 1/2 years ago”

    kentuckyliz in reply to Browndog. | July 3, 2013 at 11:08 am

    LOL I listened to the other GZ calls to NEN as NWP…and it’s always the dispatcher asking about race, the first or second question, bringing it up first (not GZ). “Is he Black, Hispanic, or White?” I’m offended on behalf of Asians and Native Americans. LOL

      rantbot in reply to kentuckyliz. | July 3, 2013 at 11:23 am

      In my personal experience, that’s what the police mean when they ask for a description of a suspicious person – is he black or white?

      As for what they do with the information, I can only speculate. There’s no obvious reason to assume that they’re drawing premature conclusions about guilt of innocence; skin color is a perfectly legitimate quality for identification purposes.

    Mister Natural in reply to Browndog. | July 3, 2013 at 11:10 am

    I’ve got you now Browndog.
    That’s EPITHET not EPITAPH.
    An epitaph (from Greek ἐπιτάφιος epitaphios “a funeral oration” from ἐπί epi “at, over” and τάφος taphos “tomb”) is a short text honoring a deceased person.

    EPITHET often refers to an abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrase, such as a racial epithet.

    Shall we call it a draw?

      Browndog in reply to Mister Natural. | July 3, 2013 at 11:21 am

      If you think this is the 1st time I’ve been embarrassed by imperfect text, You’d be wrong, Mister (Natural)!

      (We don’t do a lot of grammer/spelling police around here)

      Browndog in reply to Mister Natural. | July 3, 2013 at 11:25 am

      Besides, you were supposed to be too busy laughing at my joke to notice anything amiss.

        Mister Natural in reply to Browndog. | July 3, 2013 at 11:41 am

        a little good-natured ribbing is always welcome;
        it spices up this pathetic excuse for a prosecution case

LOL! The commenters on HLN now trying to remember what point the Prosecution was trying to make by putting the Law Professor on the stand in the first place.

This wanna be cop stuff is so much nonsense. The state is arguing that it is circumstantial evidence of the defendants state of mind.

I don’t have a copy of Florida’s jury instructions, but here is an excerpt from Connecticuts patterned jury instructions on inferences from circumstantial evidence that are fairly standard.

“With circumstantial evidence, you must first determine the credibility of the witness or witnesses and decide whether the facts testified to did exist. Then you must decide whether the happenings of those events or the existence of those facts leads logically to the conclusion that other events occurred or other facts exist, and ultimately, whether the crime alleged was committed by the accused. ”

So the fact that Zimmerman wanted to be a cop leads logically to what pray tell? This all highlights how threadbare the state’s evidence is.

    kentuckyliz in reply to Pauldd. | July 3, 2013 at 11:09 am

    An adequate defense would be to test the veracity of GZ’s intuitions. GZ reported suspicious behavior to the NEN dispatcher. Was he correct in what he saw TM doing? Let’s explore that……

The prosecution has one and only one goal: At the end of the trial they want to give a closing argument which will provide playable sound bites in which the prosecutor viciously attacks Zimmerman as a reckless, racist, frustrated wannabe cop intent on committing wanton murder, as clever as a devious serial killer in deliberately not “lawyering up” in the aftermath of his arrest so he could tell his side of the story, knowing in advance how things would play out…that his exculpatory renditions of what happened would be presented by the prosecution in the course of the State’s case in chief thus foreclosing any need for him to actually testify in his own behalf.

George Zimmerman is obviously a combination of Machiavelli, Edward Gein, Sun Tzu, Prof. Moriarty, and the guy who owned Kunta Kinte before he ran away.

    kentuckyliz in reply to Marco100. | July 3, 2013 at 11:11 am

    GZ isn’t smart enough to be that crafty. He couldn’t even get the clubhouse address right before he got stressed by TM’s intimidation tactic of walking around the car with his hand in his waistband as if holding a gun.

      Marco100 in reply to kentuckyliz. | July 3, 2013 at 11:22 am

      Well that’s just the point…NO ONE is “that smart.”

      The State’s theory is that GZ actually took legal courses in a more or less premeditated plan to, in the future, better enable himself to commit a racist homicide and successfully get away with it.

      Also that GZ is clever enough to actually CALL THE POLICE before doing the homicide and essentially TURN HIMSELF IN!!!

      Then, once arrested, that GZ DELIBERATELY FAILED TO LAWYER UP, and repeatedly make potentially self-incriminating statements to the police, because he KNEW IN ADVANCE that the State would end up presenting GZ’s statements via testimony of State witnesses IN A MANNER WHICH GZ KNEW IN ADVANCE would be favorable to GZ’s legal defense.

      This may make a good narrative for an episode of “Columbo” but I think falls apart once any attempt to apply logic/common sense to it.

      Makes much more sense to assume that GZ was a moderately-educated but none too bright working class stiff (perhaps somewhat frustrated due to his inability to get a LEO job), who saw an unknown individual “casing” his community for a possible burglary, called it in to police, and then was jumped, head pounded into concrete, perhaps overreacted (although this is the subjective/objective issue of SD and it’s got to be beyond a reasonable doubt) and fired his weapon.

      Can we realistically say that GZ’s firing of the gun under those circumstances was a pre-mediated killing, or an overreaction (manslaughter), beyond a reasonable doubt?

      So far there’s been absolutely zero evidence of racial animus by George against Trayvon (although Jeantel’s testimony arguably indicates racial animus the other way!)

After the fiasco with calling the legals professor, a little food for thought to BDLR:

Be careful what you wish for… you might just get it.

BDLR wanted to be able to show Zimmerman was lying about what he’d learned about self defense , he just didn’t want anything more than that.

Some technologies are just not ready for prime-time, courtroom-wise…

Skype! What could go wrong? ‘Press 1 for…’

OK. This Skype testimony is HILARIOUS!!!!!!

    Bystander in reply to Exiliado. | July 3, 2013 at 11:30 am

    As soon as I saw the usernames up I knew the tsunami was coming. Regretfully, I myself failed to create a “George Zimmerman” skype account in time to join in.

Oh good grief. As if this wasn’t enough of a (tragic) circus already!

That was completely awesome. At first I thought it was a friend calling, but then when it turned into 2-3-10 different people, I realized what was happening.

LilMissSpellcheck | July 3, 2013 at 11:14 am

Prosecution Skype call is continually interrupted by incoming calls. Could they not have run the video full screen and prevented a million incoming calls by NOT REVEALING THEIR SKYPE NAME in the page frame?

Incompetent morons.

Did you see Kathi Belich’s tweet?

Kathi Belich, WFTV @KBelichWFTV

We have found a post on by a Gordon Scott Pleasants calling for #Zimmermanon9 ‘s arrest.

Me- I hope the defence monitors her twitter!

Regarding the first professor’s testimony, it reminds me of the story of Peter Rabbit: “please, please don’t throw me into the briar patch”.

Defense, I’m not in England, lol.

Mister Natural | July 3, 2013 at 11:20 am

pity the poor court stenographer

I had to laugh at that one objection. Reminds me of “Liar Liar.”

BDLR: “Objection!”
Judge: “On what grounds?”
BDLR: “Because it’s devastating to my case!”

    Exiliado in reply to CrustyB. | July 3, 2013 at 11:42 am

    There’s one thing the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt:

    They have an unusual talent for embarrassing themselves.

LilMissSpellcheck | July 3, 2013 at 11:27 am

Brer Rabbit. Peter Rabbit is an entirely different bunny.

FAC (fire arms chick) is a good, well-trained witness.

Look at how she often looks at the jury as she answers.

Uncle Samuel | July 3, 2013 at 11:30 am

Note: Angela Corey is present in the court room today.

She correctly calls it a magazine! I’m in love…

Off topic, but Morsi reportedly under house arrest. Not confirmed, but Tahir Square cheering.

    Browndog in reply to Lisa_PA. | July 3, 2013 at 11:45 am

    Not possible.

    Barack Obama warned the military not to interfere yesterday.

      Voluble in reply to Browndog. | July 3, 2013 at 11:46 am

      Let’s just hope he doesn’t mount a rescue. He seems to REALLY like the Muslim brotherhood.

        Mister Natural in reply to Voluble. | July 3, 2013 at 12:00 pm

        a rescue? great idea! like when adolph sent the ss to rescue mussolini from the mountaintop? a success.
        nah! more likely it would be like when jimmy carter sent our boys to rescue the iran hostages. epic fail

      Lisa_PA in reply to Browndog. | July 3, 2013 at 11:50 am

      It appears that not everyone thinks he’s as awsomely awesome as he thinks he is. 🙂

LilMissSpellcheck | July 3, 2013 at 11:45 am

Solomon, are you implying that there’s flop sweat flowing?

Ms. Fulton with glasses and hair up in a bun.

(resist I much)

I think for political purposes the words “Stand Your Ground” had to appear in this trial and the professor was about the only way the prosecutor could get them in.

I refuse to believe the prosecutors don’t know this is all for show. I also know they would not have been assigned the case if they were not politically reliable. Corey had her choice of who she assigned if I understand how things work.

GREAT exhibit, the sweatshirt.

BIG, providing the defense a chance to impress the jury with the size of Martin.

Now the prosecution is trying to prove that TM was shot with Zimmerman’s gun at close range.
So much time to prove what everybody knows.
Shame, shame, shame.
No case, no case at all.

Ok, there it is.
MOM nailed it.

Not an issue here. nailed it!

I know its been mentioned in other threads, but what kind of weapon is that? O’Mara just sold me. I want one now.

    Matt in FL in reply to rokiloki. | July 3, 2013 at 11:59 am

    It’s a KEL-TEC PF9, and without getting into a long discussion, I strongly recommend you do some shopping around before you run out and buy one.

      AZ_Langer in reply to Matt in FL. | July 3, 2013 at 12:04 pm

      I would add that having the opportunity to shoot many different firearms is extremely valuable before deciding what to buy.

Humphreys Executor | July 3, 2013 at 11:58 am

I just read through the tweets from this morning. The prosecution, with the help of the judge, is providing a valuable law school seminar on how NOT to try a criminal case. Thanks for the entertainment.

O’Mara is doing a great job, pulling information from the witness that his positive for his client.

    Ragspierre in reply to rhorton1. | July 3, 2013 at 12:00 pm

    I hope he asks her how many times the gun was fired.

    That will be VERY useful in closing.

      rhorton1 in reply to Ragspierre. | July 3, 2013 at 12:03 pm

      I don’t think she has sufficient information to testify about that except circumstantially based of the number of casings recovered

        Jazzizhep in reply to rhorton1. | July 3, 2013 at 12:18 pm

        me thinks you are splitting hairs…she can testify that only one bullet is missing from a full+1 loaded gun… just knowing how many casings were on the ground is less definitive for determining how many times a particular gun has been fired…different guns could have been fired, or casings could have been picked up or not found