Yep this is a giant non sequtor they can't prove that TM was stoned... It just seems like more needless stalling. As if they ate setting up for an appeal that won't/shouldn't happen.

It seems dumb that the judge won't allow an expert in voice recognition to testify on this point but will allow J. Random Dumbass to, as if they're going to say anything other than what you would expect them to say.

Have any of the networks gotten their own expert to listen to the tape and offer an opinion?

Actually, as far as I know, because black people used to smoke it around the turn of the 20th century. It's not like states and the feds did double blind studies before making it illegal. Also, paranoia is not the same as aggression. I've been paranoid and simply wanted to read a book or play a video game. In my experience, drunk people fight, stoned people flee. Bit none of that is relevant, because there is no evidence as far as I know that the smoking was recent. Is someone who drank alcohol in the last 30 days more likely to be aggressive?

I get it. I'm a middle class white guy, and I don't like black teenagers in hoodies. But, despite that, I realize that not all black teenagers in hoodies are dangerous thugs.

Have you every even heard of anyone attacking someone while talking to a chick on a cell phone? Seems incongruous.

What if GZ didn't have the broken nose, would that change anyone's view? I don't think GZ intentionally hit himself, but it would have been a smart move if he just shot a guy and knew the law.

The FBI voice recognition expert came in and testified they couldn't do it. Agreed that people IDing it is dumb, but the prosecution did the same thing and we get to hope the jury is smart enough to just ignore it.

Is this the reason that the judge excluded any other expert testimony on this subject?

Was this to show that TM's mom was lying when she said she heard it for the first time with the cops?

The issue is that jury often give undue weight to "experts" so there is a higher standard for allowing them to testify. Juries are much more able to assess teh credibility of non-experts (for example they likely know that TM's mom is of course going to say it was TM; and vice-versa for GZ).

The reason why is that it was junk science. The guy claiming he could match screams wasn't some mainstream science dude, he was a quack well outside of what is commonly accepted in the scientific community.

No it was to show that they didnt follow proper procedure. They should have been separated and come to their own conclusion without being able to influence one another.

I recall the experts at nbc tried some tape manipulation. It backfired.

GZ said it appeared Trayvon was on drugs. This testimony indicates that Trayvon was on drugs and therefore destroys the burden of ill will and hatred motive the State is trying to meet or at least gives the Defense the argument that he approached him due to looking like he was on drugs rather than because he was black.

BTW the whole audio expert thing is a great example of prosecutorial overreach in this case. They went to the freaking FBI, presumably some of the best people in the country at this stuff. The FBI came back to them and said you can't match speech to someone screaming for their life, and you can't recreate screaming for your life.

Was that going to stop the prosecution? **** no, they found some jackass who basically had a website, a product to sell and virtually no history of testifying in court or validating his claims. The whole prosecution is so FUBAR.

Yes I'm aware of why it's in the trial, and the defense should make that argument because it's available to them. However, there's literally no chance zimmerman would be able to pick out who smoked pot 4 hours ago from 50 ft away in the rain.

Jose Baez trolling Casey Anthony haters and saying you can get DNA from something submerged under water. LOL.

Right, maybe to me and you it seems that way. However, to the jury, if presented in such a way, the defense can convince them that was the reason for GZ approaching Trayvon in the first place as opposed to race.

Yes, and you and me are correct. Which is why this is a red herring. IDGAF about the jury being stupid, and completely understand why the defense is doing it (I would too in their position). It's completely wrong though.

was gz ever pressed on his statement that "i think he is on drugs"... Shouldnt there have been further "Explain yourself GZ what do you mean on drugs"

Kid was black, blacks are always on drugs, what's to explain, right?

Also, casing the joint or something.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-dy...-our-children/

msnbc trying to fan fire for riot

The self defense laws in this country are out of control. When it's legal to shoot people fleeing with your TV or a person running from your neighbors house or a prostitute driving away with money its time to reevaluate.

meh thats just Texas

why is the judge treating the gunshot's time, as heard in the 911 call, as up for dispute? seems like it's cut and dry, unless the telephone company's clock was malfunctioning/incorrect

I think Nevada also. I think the issue there (going form memory) is that you have a constitutional (state) right to protect your property.

HOw was GZ's car not noted where the hell it was in evidence?!?!? Why was that in dispute?

None of this has anything to do with this case