TexasCHLforum.com

RottenApple wrote:....

It depends on the local NW organization. I've lived in areas where the NW volunteers were, as you say, just trained to be good witnesses. But I've also lived in places where the volunteers had regular patrol schedules. Just depends on how the local NW wants to run it.

This was one of the first things to blow up in the prosecution's face when they were persecuting Zimmerman with the "wannabe cop" theory. He was part of the Neighborhood Watch, which was basically see and report. The Sanford PD also had a "Citizens on Patrol" (COPs) ( ) which provided uniforms and cars and radios and scheduled patrols, similar to a real cop (but no guns allowed).

The gal who ran the NW program, who was put on the stand by the prosecution, testified that Zimmerman was such a good Neighborhood Watch guy that she tried to recruit him for the COPS program -- but GZ declined, which pretty much undercut the "wannabe cop" theme.

bdickens wrote:George just needs to change his name to Ben Gahzi and the media and the regime will never mention him again.

This is pure gold! Imma gonna steal it....

Jaguar wrote:Sanford, FL is going to ban Neighborhood Watch members from carrying guns while on volunteer duty.

Sorry, you wouldn't catch me volunteering to watch for trouble while unarmed.

http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/up ... 91532-9217" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sanford police chief is walking this back now...that is, he is "clarifying" his position.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/11/sa ... more-70050" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This certainly adds to the prosecution's luster:

/url]State Attorney Angela Corey fires information techonology director who raised concerns in Trayvon Martin case

The "concerns" were that the prosecution did not turn over information they had extracted from Martin's phone that did not reflect well on him. The defense did not get it until right before the trial started, asked for more time to review it and for it to be place in evidence. The judge denied this, and postponed a sanctions (against the prosecution) hearing until after the trial.

The IT guy who extracted the info from Martin's phone realized the prosecution was not turning over his reports; and he got worried that he would be later held liable over it, contacted a personal lawyer (who interestingly had worked in Corey's office and did not like her). That lawyer contacted the defense, and that's when the defense became aware of the reports.

Right after closing arguments, Corey fired the IT guy.

texanjoker wrote:
... A 17 year old kid has the right to purchase some snacks and walk home w/o being profiled as a punk....

I found this a disturbing assertion.

No, he does NOT have a "right" not to be profiled as a punk, a boy scout, or anything else, nor a right to control anyone else's thoughts, whether they are nice or not-so-nice thoughts. It is profoundly wrong to assert a "right" to control others' thinking.

And he also does not have a "right" against some other citizen asking him, or even demanding of him, what he is doing in the public area of a neighborhood. He CAN refuse to answer, he can walk away, he can run away, he can call the cops, he can tell the other guy to back off (what I would have done if approached by a "creepy" anything), and he can defend himself IF he is attacked. In this case there is zero evidence that Martin was attacked, or even struck by anything other than a bullet, and plenty of evidence that GZ was straddled by Martin and beaten.

texanjoker wrote:I've chased a lot of people in my time and people running AWAY don't confront you. They run and hide.

You're a cop, right? Aside from the fact that there is no evidence that GZ "chased" anyone, being chased by a cop is a whole different ball game than being "chased" by a civilian.

Jury Instructions: http://t.co/TWUYAkSr9U" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Opens a .pdf.

ScooterSissy wrote:I've had to turn off the sound a few times ...

One of the lawyers following this on twitter ran a "poll" on who is the most annoying prosecutor. I think this one won.

baldeagle wrote:

ELB wrote:

Panda wrote:I read the judge directly questioned Zimmerman. Was that in open court?

The judge asked him if he wanted to testify. He said no.

Oh, and the jury was present. It was after the last defense witness stepped down, court recessed, and the lawyers were doing some administrivia, entering last pieces of evidence into the trial.

Judge also denied another motion to acquit.

If court recessed, the jury wasn't there. Which was it?

See correction just above. sigh.

sjfcontrol wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

ELB wrote:

Panda wrote:I read the judge directly questioned Zimmerman. Was that in open court?

The judge asked him if he wanted to testify. He said no.

Oh, and the jury was present. It was after the last defense witness stepped down, court recessed, and the lawyers were doing some administrivia, entering last pieces of evidence into the trial.

Judge also denied another motion to acquit.

If court recessed, the jury wasn't there. Which was it?

My faulty memory says the jury was not present. It wouldn't make sense to do that in front of the jury.

RATS. My comment was supposed to say "the jury was NOT present." sorry about that. flailing fingers I guess.

C-dub wrote:Did anyone see what happened with the "doll" today? I read about it, but would have liked to have seen it when it happened.

There are links to video segments of today's testimony in this thread: http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/zi ... row//#more" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I suspect you will find in in one of those. You can probably find it directly on Youtube.

Panda wrote:I read the judge directly questioned Zimmerman. Was that in open court?

The judge asked him if he wanted to testify. He said no.

Oh, and the jury was not present. It was after the last defense witness stepped down, court recessed, and the lawyers were doing some administrivia, entering last pieces of evidence into the trial.

Judge also denied another motion to acquit.



ETA: left out "not" in my comment on jury. makes a difference. sigh.

Guess what, court was still in session until a few minutes ago. Judge Nelson apparently providing yet another hook for reversing on appeal any conviction:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/ju ... more-58157" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ScooterSissy wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:What the heck did that prove?

Not much, other than she also identified Zimmerman's voice. That one really may be extremely helpful. Most of the other witnesses have had a greater level of prejudice. Martin's family claim it's Martin. Zimmerman's family claim it's Zimmerman. Zimmerman had something of an edge, because he had several friends also claim it's Zimmerman. However, this is just a neighbor. A "friendly neighbor" (her own description) but still somewhat removed from the situation, and she says it's Zimmerman's voice. I suspect we'll hear more on that during the defense's close.

Au contraire.

The key testimony she provided was not spoken. She was a nice African American neighbor who knew the Zimmermans, thought Zimmerman and his wife were also nice people and was concerned about him and his wife, so concerned she went to find the wife and then came back to check on GZ. Hard to square that with the image of Zimmerman that the prosecution wants to convict him of being. Remember, the prosecution's whole case is that Zimmerman is a racist who racially "profiled") and chased down a black kid so he could murder him, because he was black. Cuz Zimmerman is a WHITE hispanic (and disregard that black grandmother of his). Just ask attorney Crump, and the rest of the racial grievance industry.

BTW, ran across this today. http://theconservativetreehouse.com/201 ... benjamins/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When GZ gets acquitted, he should immediately and publicly apply to the Florida Crimes Compensation Trust Fund.

ScooterSissy wrote:

ELB wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: ...
The judge CAN'T say yes if she disallowed the introduction of Treyvon's school records. ...

She can, and she did, and she still disallowed Trayvon's history of bad acts.

Doesn't look like it helped the state any tho, that I can see. Like nearly every other state witness, the best the state can say is "didn't really help the state;" reality is more like "another couple witness's testimonies blew up in the state's face."

I think most of the defense's objections are to make sure they have plenty of points to put in an appeal if the jury goes completely emo about a "child's" death and convicts GZ of manslaughter. The judge is clearly favoring the prosecution - if she didn't, the prosecution wouldn't have anything to say to the jury.

That ruling disallowed the information during opening statements. She left open the possibility of the information being introduced during the trial. I suspect that it will be introduced.

I was referring to today's ruling. The prosecution wanted to bring in GZ's school records. Defense objected, said, among other things, if it comes in should be able to bring in Trayvon's history (did not make a formal request tho). Judge said yes to GZ records, to Trayvon's.

The Annoyed Man wrote: ...
The judge CAN'T say yes if she disallowed the introduction of Treyvon's school records. ...

She can, and she did, and she still disallowed Trayvon's history of bad acts.

Doesn't look like it helped the state any tho, that I can see. Like nearly every other state witness, the best the state can say is "didn't really help the state;" reality is more like "another couple witness's testimonies blew up in the state's face."

I think most of the defense's objections are to make sure they have plenty of points to put in an appeal if the jury goes completely emo about a "child's" death and convicts GZ of manslaughter. The judge is clearly favoring the prosecution - if she didn't, the prosecution wouldn't have anything to say to the jury.