Well that’s not entirely true. One witness said she heard them arguing. Words of some kind were exchanged in what was perceived as a heated argument with older man being the louder of the 2.
What’s the source for this part:
??
It seems pretty crucial, since that call ended seconds after they encounter each other.
From your own cite:
Wow, seriously… if that call started at 12 minutes after exactly, and lasted almost 4 minutes, then we’re supposed to believe that in the space of less than a single minute GZ was put in a position to have a legitimate fear of death by an unarmed guy? Less than a minute’s worth of altercation and he’s at “I have no choice but to kill him”? Was Trayvon some kind of ninja?
When I said “state of mind” I was addressing the claim that TM had the intent of confronting GZ.
How about I quote Chief Lee:
FOX 35 Orlando | Local News, Weather, and Live Streams | WOFL
OK, I’ve found quite a few references to the call as a 911 call, and a few that refer to is as a non-emergency number call.
Which is it, and how do you know?
Uh, you’ve heard of opening and closing arguments, right?
Did you not just quote him quoting the Sanford Chief of Police saying it was a non-emergency call, or am I imagining things again?
A picture of Trayvon Martin’s phone record shows an incoming call at 7:12 pm.
I googled “martin zimmerman police non-emergency” and got 588,00 hits. I will not cite them all. Here is another:
http://www.thegrio.com/specials/trayvon-martin/george-zimmermans-evolving-story.php
I can only guess sloppy reporting resulted in it being called a “911 call” in other cases.
Sure. That’s where defense counsel floats all their unfounded hunches, and hopes the jury doesn’t notice they neglected to supply any supporting testimony.
My understanding is that while there are two numbers, they are answered by the same pool of personnel in Sanford.
I forget where I came across that info. Sorry.
Again I didn’t say that Z thought M was armed.
You don’t get it anyway. I’d agree with that. But I can’t agree with your statement as posted.
Which was what exactly?
It’s merely incidental to the post in question which I expect you don’t remember.
It’s not something that I would use the word “support” to describe.
But I have learned that words have many varied meanings depending on whose mouth they’re coming from.
Are you saying that attorney’s arguments are testimony, or is someone else making that mistake?
Assuming neither the judge or the opposing counsel stop them. There’s limits to what they can say…
Of course, I see the problem with that, but what I see is an Attorney who got an arrest warrant and didn’t have disclose anything that wasn’t already public. I regard the affidavit as a disposable document.
I highly recommend that anyone interested in the timeline of the shooting read this article:
She has everything laid out down to the second. It has to be correct because it agrees with my timeline. 
From what some reporters claimed, that very brief hearing was for the prosecution to establish probable cause for arrest to a judge. I would say that makes the affidavit far more than “disposable”. In fact, I find it remarkable the judge agreed there was in fact probable cause without a single word or question about the issue spoken aloud in court. It’s especially telling IMO that the Sanford police have continually maintained they could not establish probable cause since day 1. Since we can all agree (i think) that there were no significant new revelations in it, that makes the Sanford PD a bunch of dipshits, at least as far as whoever ultimately made that call.
Actually my understanding is probable cause hearings are almost a formality and judges almost never end a case there.