George Zimmerman /Trayvon Martin General Discussion #12 Wed July 10

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
lol, they're trying to get in prior bad acts? Good luck, state.
 
I would TOTALLY do this if "God forbid" I was in the same situation. Why would I want someone else benefiting from or using my son's name however they determine to use it?
IMO these trademarked statements will be used in the future to fight for victim's rights and equality not to try and make money for themselves.

thats the thing about opinions. in the end, so what?

for every opinion, there is a rebuttal.
 
I hate when witnesses do crap like that. What is wrong with some people - can't they shut their mouths! We've got people tweeting, selling photos to HLN, giving interviews - it never ends.
Since I was away I only have some idea of what is happening, but I think Tricia can tell you that when you get a lot of phone calls, emails etc asking a certain question, you modify your website to deal with it. A lot of sites have FAQs for that reason.
 
Which proves that GZ did not go looking for TM and that TM surprised him.

He was already there. He was waiting looking for the police.

If the first calls are 2-3 mins from NEN, That leaves no time for him to go looking for TM but that TM was out looking for him and confronted him there at that T and there abouts..


I believe that he saw TM when he told the dispatcher to have them call me instead of meeting me at the car. :twocents:
 
if you think the judges demeanor is acceptable, then we just disagree.

but i've never seen anything like it.

btw, ashamed of them, not yourself.

I, in no way, think that the judge's demeanor is anywhere near acceptable! It's abhorrent, IMO!

Trust that we do not disagree on much. :smile:
 
Isn't exercise a way to lose weight?? :twocents:
I'm told it is, but for me . . . makes me crave chocolate . . . so does couch surfing . . . and reading WS, but then I also want some wine with my chocolate. :floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:
 
There are very specific instances in which prior bad acts may be admitted, and I've cited the Federal Rules of Evidence here that list these exceptions. It does not seem to me, that calling this agent would be anywhere within the scope of these exceptions (the testimony must show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident). Did the State really think they could get away with this?
 
Not according to their website:

well as those just looking for self defense and/or functional fitness training. We offer bio-mechanically correct training that has been scientifically tested and competition proven. We take pride in ensuring that ALL of our students develop solid fundamentals in the discipline(s) of their choice. Refreshingly, for those just wanting to get in shape, competing is NOT a requirement

:rockon: thank you
 
I believe that he saw TM when he told the dispatcher to have them call me instead of meeting me at the car. :twocents:

There is no proof of that though and He had just told RJ that he was home. If that was the case the fight would have taken place right at his dad's place.
 
Legal question:

Why only 6 people on jury? Seems more people on jury would favor a mistrial. Whose idea was it to only have 6?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
125
Guests online
2,406
Total visitors
2,531

Forum statistics

Threads
601,934
Messages
18,132,115
Members
231,187
Latest member
atriumproperties
Back
Top