Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ah - I have no knowledge of those things. I'm getting my information solely from the case and then discussing what I observe/think here. I guess time will tell what the prosecution presents.
That excuse is getting kinda old. You should do a bit of reading.
We don't know that Martin wasn't heading home. We don't know if he got lost in an unfamiliar condo complex. We don't know if he ran around a bit in an attempt to lose Zimmerman. Maybe he wanted to stroll around and continue talking to his friend on the phone. He had no obligation to head home whatsoever.
If someone is following me on a city street, I have an obligation to scurry home?
First, every bit of what you just claimed is pure and complete speculation without basis in reality. Are you claiming he didn't know where he was? He walked out of the complex to the store, as per testimony. There was no testimony he was unfamiliar with the area. In fact, he claimed to Jentel to be going the back way.
You have no obligation but if we're talking about what could have prevented this? Yes, his going straight home would have. So, based on your take, only Zimmerman was in the wrong. My contention is that we could do 'what if' all day long. What is pertinent is what happened when the two met up.
That is the ONLY part of this whole thing I find troublesome. We don't know if George did or didn't mention Neighborhood Watch, but we can assume he didn't or he would have said he did.
George did not mention it. Det Sereino asked him. Its in the police tape transcripts.
That excuse is getting kinda old. You should do a bit of reading.
WHY? I want to see the trial in real time and get my information in real time. Am I precluded from discussing the case because I didn't form an opinion ahead of time?? That's absurd.
Opening statements I do believe. The only DNA was a small amount on TM's shirttail. I could be mistaken but that was the gist of it. The prosecuting attorney said they used woulden sticks to dig for DNA under TM's finger nails and found none.
We will see if the Dr. who did the autopsy supports this, as well as when they call witnesses who gathered the forensic evidence.
The "official" crime lab report is on-line. It's more then just a small amount on his shirttail. I would not expect to see any of Zimmerman's DNA under Martin's nails. Zimmerman did not have any wounds consistent with scratch marks. This is simply a red herring that the DA is trying to throw in.
He maybe should have kept the bigger flashlight properly holstered with a retention strap.
Cops used to be trained to beat people with elongated flashlights.
Totally untrue. We carried long flashlights but there was never any training on using them as weapons. Every academy class I went through stressed NOT using them since they were not approved weapons.
WHY? I want to see the trial in real time and get my information in real time. Am I precluded from discussing the case because I didn't form an opinion ahead of time?? That's absurd.
Your opinions as a court room observer are far more reliable and interesting than those who have made fools of themselves whilst admitting they didn't watch.
Continue, please. Your perspective is fascinating.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
