At this time of trying to disarm everyone, they do not want a high profile justified shooting to be sanctioned.

Now what about all of our advanced technology that can do voice analysis and prove whose voice that was screaming for help?

reminder, on person had fists,, one person had a gun

both have a 'potential', for deadly harm,, although one is better designed for delivering it easier

and the gun won,,,


it matters not who was yelling for help,, but either person, if reasonably fearful of impending death,, could be hollering for help,,,,

Tell that to the courtroom.

Both mothers identified the person calling for help as their son. It can't be both.

Again, where is the fancy technology that matches voice prints, or is that stuff only a bunch of fiction on television?

zimmermans attorney filed the motion to keep it out,,,

It is only stuff of fiction.
It is not very accurate in reality.
Don't believe everything you see on tv.
That's how the Mountain Dew stealing aliens try to trick people.
Those soabs.

Why would he do that if it was Zimmerman's voice, and why would the Judge allow it to be kept out?

Im sure we will find out after the trial

I think he said it might confuse the jury,,,,

I think this case is confusing enough.


What I garner.

Zimmerman disobeyed police dispatchers who told him twice to stay in his car.
Zimmerman "stalked" the kid.
The 17 year old youngster thought he was a toughie who could take out a guy with a gun.


This trial is a circus. I think Zimmerman shot him just because of an azz-whopping being put on him.

jury trials can get tricky. an experienced trial attorney has many many ways he can control what information he wants or doesn't want and how that information is perceived

the system is set up to be "innocent until proven guilty", but many people make up their minds well before any trial even begins

Its tough because of a cultural divide,, imho

two people made choices that night
one we know was avoiding a confrontation and the other following

what happens next is a mystery, unless we believe the unkept/untrained phone witness that the boy had lost the man and then became agitated when the man was still 'right behind' him at which point he (stood his ground?) stopped trying to avoid and asked why he was being followed

from there, one with a gun, one with fists, and the one with the gun survived,,,

I think in cultures where profiling and being deemed 'suspicious' are regular annoyances , it follows that such an escalation was the result of an antagonists harassing behavior

and in cultures where 'thugs' and 'ghetto rats' are the scum of the earth,,,it follows that the escalation was a result of a thugs choice to be a tough guy,,,

IF the voice test are not accurate then, like a lie detector test, they should not be allowed.

IF they are accurate, then they should be allowed SO THEY CAN SEE WHO was LYING about WHO WAS SCREAMING FOR HELP.

I don't see anything confusing about that.

Damn I'm glad I decided not to become a lawyer. That would be such a frustrating job.

Z was a member of the neighborhood watch. He had a license to carry, his weapon was registered. He hoped to make a difference, had made a choice to serve the neighborhood in a desire to keep it safe.

Perhaps he made a flaw in judgement by following T, but was that not what a neighborhood watch does, and we all know how well police respond.,... usually after the crime.

Only a fool would attack a guy with a gun when they are unarmed, so T obviously didn't consider that possibility, or his actions, and ended up a fool who bit off more than he was able to chew when it turned out Z was armed.... a bad, fatal, choice on his part..... the bigger flaw in judgement.

or, only a fool would think he could outrun a gun,,,and knowing someone intent on following him , or even suspecting someone intent on following him, was reaching for one,,,would fight for their life

with only the gun toting survivors word about why the 'attack' happened,,,

might not even realized in the beginning that Zimmerman was packing Heat!
Probably the reason why he did attack!
Would have been an Idiot to attack an armed Man!

If Z was a "gun crazed" maniac as you imply, no neighborhood watch would have had him in their ranks. He also would not have received the carry permit or been able to buy a legal weapon.

there is no way to know what neighborhoods will and wont do in the name of protection,,from neighborhood to neighborhood, they may assume someone who studied law and was a judges son was a good bet ,,,,gun toting or not (and that's assuming they would know or investigate whether he carried a gun or if that's part of their associations standards for neighborhood watch)


but in any case


Z never identified himself as a neighbor hood watch, to a person being followed, he was a maniac for being so incessant in following him,,and the added action of reaching for something, would have invoked a reasonable fear for ones life




police have justified shootings on this very basis ,,,,,

there is no way to know what neighborhoods will and wont do in the name of protection,,from neighborhood to neighborhood, they may assume someone who studied law and was a judges son was a good bet ,,,,gun toting or not (and that's assuming they would know or investigate whether he carried a gun or if that's part of their associations standards for neighborhood watch)


but in any case


Z never identified himself as a neighbor hood watch, to a person being followed, he was a maniac for being so incessant in following him,,and the added action of reaching for something, would have invoked a reasonable fear for ones life




police have justified shootings on this very basis ,,,,,

What was he supposed to do that he didn't? He had no need or obligation to identify himself, he was simply acting as a concerned citizen.

Now on the other hand, if he was attacked by T, and Z had as much right or more to be there, most would have fired 1st and asked questions later.... like the police do!

You may recall.....

Z had cuts and bruises all over his face and "back" of his head.

T had only bruised knuckles....and a gunshot wound.....

So what, Z attacked him 1st and beat the hell out of him using his head?

Sounds and looks to me like Z took a good beating long before he ever pulled and fired his weapon..... I think that's still called self defense.... at least by everyone I know.....

he was supposed to stay in his car

as the actual EVIDENCE showed

T had only a scrape on his left hand, which was not conclusively a fresh wound,,weird for a right hander dealing 'mma' punches

Z had a broken nose, which can happen from a well landed punch, particularly if there has been previous damage from CONSENTUAL MMA fighting with adults

Z had scrapes on the back of his head that didn't require stitches,,,, conclusive with more of someone who had had contact with the pavement, as opposed to having it SLAMMED into it repeatedly,,

if someone else has a gun and all you have are fists, what are you supposed to do?

neither did anything ILLEGAL, in being where they were, but one did invoke a reasonable fear by his actions of pursuing and reaching for something,,,,that doesn't lead the average citizen to the belief they are merely 'concerned'


until you have been followed alone in the dark, perhaps it is reasonable to believe the one being pursued should just assume it is a 'concerned citizen'... especially if , after given the chance to explain theirself, they merely become more combative and REACH for something,,,

,,but as I said, the cultural divide, will leave people with different interpretations of what was 'reasonable' behavior,,,,


looks to me like a strange man turned his car around to follow a boy alone at night and then pursued him on foot where his car would not go before the a fight ensued (' a good beating' will be another cultural interpretation of what happened) and the man, trained in mma, instead of trying to fight merely shot his gun,,,,

IMHO, no matter what the outcome of the trial is, there will be no real winners.