TripleDigitRide

Actually, the evidence that has been presented to the jury is available to all of us. It's one thing to have an opinion that you may or may not have chosen to handle the situation in the same manner in which Zimmerman did, but when deciding a man's guilt or innocence, it's probably best to stick to the actual evidence. 

Here's the first video.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eN3ehYJ3NMA&feature=share&list=PLZRzoZLUOXSq8fvkRoYHTlgGvp0ordOQq

Maybe he's related to Kwik. 

This kind of remind me of Serino's testimony during the Zimmerman trial. The police can lie to you when it's convenient for them, but you can lie to them when it's convenient for you. 

So true.  :rofl:

The problem has been, all along, that your arguments have been purely speculation. If you know anything about a trial, you already know that speculation holds zero weight.    The evidence is that Zimmerman did not chase down Martin. The evidence is that Zimmerman was walking back towards his vehicle when Martin jumped out of the darkness and physically assaulted Zimmerman. You just so happen not to like the source. Like the source or not, evidence is evidence, especially when there's zero evidence to the contrary.    For arguments sake, let's assume there is no evidence saying that Martin jumped out of the darkness and physically assaulted Zimmerman. Do you have any evidence that Zimmerman was doing anything other than what he said he was doing? Again, speculations and assumptions hold zero weight. 

It's a near impossible feat to prove something that was never there to begin with.

If the judge wouldn't allow testimony from "experts" as to who's screaming, I don't understand how she'd allow testimony from an obviously biased mother who hardly raised her son.

I appreciate the answer thanks. Seems like an expensive ploy,. That testimony sounded as close as we're gonna get of a 1st hand account assuming GZ doesn't take the stand. The State lacks any real evidence for the jury, so they have been throwing anything and everything at the jury, hoping that something will stick. I've never watched so much of a trial before, and I find it quite disturbing that the State is allowed to blatantly project so much emotion on to the jury. I'm equally disturbed at how the State has been allowed to make some under-handed comments and physical gestures, obviously insinuating things that he may not otherwise be allowed to come right out and say. This case has not given me a much faith in our system, even if the jury reaches the verdict that I think they should.

Also, Richard has a great voice.

Great first video. I would suggest trying to find a way to seat the host and guests in a manner in which the host doesn't have to turn from one guest to the other. If you're using just one camera, that may be a bit more difficult.

D&T just got some CCI (limit 2) and 325 round bricks (limit 1). They don't seem to like posting prices on Facebook, so I have no idea what the price may be. If they got some, there's a chance that other local shops got some, too.

:rofl: :rock: :stunned: Par for the course with this case. It only adds to the circus atmosphere of the entire trial.

We've had the Tab 2 for since Christmas. Been great so far.

If you have to ask "how hard is it?", it's probably not for you. :p

If they have two brain cells to rub together, they'd already have their minds made up.

.

I hope this hadn't already been posted. I searched, but came up empty handed.   http://youtu.be/44zW84FKd50   http://youtu.be/44zW84FKd50

One thing has been quite evident; if you're ever involved in a similar situation, keep your mouth shut. I understand Zimmerman feeling the need to clear his name, but the prosecution can and will every single word against you. If it weren't for so much talking, I think the prosecution would have had about 30 minutes of evidence. Don't talk to your wife, best friend, parents, no one.

The prosecution is trying their best to come out swinging.

Does anyone know if the trial is streaming on any of the Sirius/XM channels? I'm no longer seeing Court TV in their lineup, so unless one of the news channels is streaming the trial, I'm probably out of luck today.

Andrew, First of all, thank you for keeping us informed and updated. Did Serino tell the jury that he had originally suggested manslaughter? If so, I must have missed that nugget. Other news outlets have mentioned it today. Thanks again.

It came out before the case. Today I'm not sure if I'm remembering it wrong or not on whether it was a sound byte from his testimony or if it was on the ticker on the bottom of the screen on HLN while they ran the tape. He did recommend charges though, and the DA said "no". I'm guessing he said it today, and I just missed it. FoxNews mentioned it in an article today. If, in fact, he did say that in front of the jury, that could be a bit damaging to the defense.

Headline news is looking at it thru Dave colored glasses :) I wouldn't expect anything less.