Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 11:27:53 am
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News: Brian Fein is now blogging weekly!  Make sure to check the homepage for his latest editorial.
+  The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums
|-+  TDMMC Forums
| |-+  Off-Topic Board
| | |-+  Trayvon Martin case
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 41 42 [43] 44 45 46 Print
Poll
Question: Do you think Zimmerman is
Guilty   -5 (25%)
Not Guilty   -2 (10%)
Self Defense   -1 (5%)
You don't know enough to decide   -12 (60%)
Total Voters: 17

Author Topic: Trayvon Martin case  (Read 148876 times)
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15571


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #630 on: July 04, 2012, 01:34:29 pm »

The prosecution has to call witnesses and ask them questions so they can testify to what they know, but the prosecution cannot call Zimmerman because you don't have to testify at your own trial if you don't want to. If Zimmerman doesn't take the stand, what is the prosecution going to do?
Expert testimony (e.g. a detective).  Ask him to describe the evidence (Zimmerman calls the police, "suspect" goes out of sight from street, caller gets out of his car upon losing sight) and what that is consistent with, in his experience.  Speculative testimony from an expert is admissible.

So then you have an expert saying what he thinks is likely (Zimmerman confronted Martin) and no response from Zimmerman to the contrary.
Logged

badger6
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 1218



« Reply #631 on: July 04, 2012, 07:20:57 pm »

I agree with you on that. Unless the prosecution has a witness that saw the whole thing, they can't really use "the aggressor" angle. Its 2nd degree murder. They don't have to show a motive or prove intent. They basically have to show that George's actions caused the unjustified  death of Trayvon. The defense knows this. That's why they are already trying the angle of "justified fear". That's why they are emphasizing George's injuries. Both at a bond hearing. They don't focus on why George got out of his vehicle. They focus on the end result. Can't fault the defense for doing their job. Its only a preview of what's to come.

Since we have already ascertained that Zimmerman was well within his rights to follow Martin. He was also well within his rights to even question Martin. The next thing that need to be determined is who initiated physical contact first. That would be the person responsible for this situation in my opinion.
Logged
Pappy13
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 8200



« Reply #632 on: July 05, 2012, 12:07:24 am »

Expert testimony (e.g. a detective).  Ask him to describe the evidence (Zimmerman calls the police, "suspect" goes out of sight from street, caller gets out of his car upon losing sight) and what that is consistent with, in his experience.  Speculative testimony from an expert is admissible.

So then you have an expert saying what he thinks is likely (Zimmerman confronted Martin) and no response from Zimmerman to the contrary.
What is he an expert on? Trayvon Martin murder cases? Expert witnesses are called to testify to something that pertains to their field, like you might ask a forensic specialist to explain how they matched the markings on a bullet to the gun or something like that. Detectives are called to testify to the evidence they found during their investigation, which is first booked into evidence. What are they going to introduce into evidence, the detectives opinion? He can only speculate if he has some evidence to speculate about. What evidence is there that Zimmerman followed Martin? Footprints? Haven't heard anything about that and I believe it was raining that night so that seems unlikely. He can't testify to what witnesses told him, that's hearsay, they have to call the witness and ask them to testify to what they saw.

Let me ask you something Spider and I mean no disrespect, but have you ever attended a trial and watched testimony being given? Their are very specific procedures that have to be followed. Most objections are to the way in which a question is posed to a witness or how evidence is presented. Things like "speculative testimony" are exceedingly rare. It's nothing like "Law and Order" in real life.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2012, 12:11:09 am by Pappy13 » Logged

That which does not kill me...gives me XP.
Phishfan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15558



« Reply #633 on: July 05, 2012, 09:14:06 am »

It's not a forum where you can just get up and talk to the jury and tell them whatever you want. The prosecution has to call witnesses and ask them questions so they can testify to what they know, but the prosecution cannot call Zimmerman because you don't have to testify at your own trial if you don't want to. If Zimmerman doesn't take the stand, what is the prosecution going to do? Who are they going to call to testify as to what he did or didn't do? Are there any witnesses to him getting out of the car and pursuing Martin or confronting Martin? No one can testify to what Zimmerman said because it's hearsay, it has to come straight from Zimmerman or what he said can't be used. And you can't bring it up in summation either because you would have had to bring it up during the trial. In short, if Zimmerman doesn't testify, then anything he said is inadmissable evidence at trial (with some exceptions of course). For the most part they can only bring any of it up if Zimmerman decides to testify and they'll only know if he's going to testify or not after the prosecution rests it's case. The prosecution goes first and then the defense. Zimmerman will probably be the last witness to testify if he testifies at all which I suspect he may not to avoid having to testify to anything he has said. If their whole case was based on what Zimmerman said then effectively they have nothing to present during that portion of the trial. The defense could simply rest and the trial would be over because the defense would have nothing to defend against.

No the prosecution has to present a case based on something other than Zimmerman's testimony, like the physical evidence for example and then hope that Zimmerman decides to testify and then they can examine his testimony. Now I have not been following the case that closely, so if there are witnesses to the crime that can testify to what they saw, that would change things considerably, but my understanding is there are no witnesses to the confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin other than Zimmerman.

After reading a bit I see that there are actually several witnesses but none of them really know who initiated the confrontation it would seem. So I would imagine the prosecutions case rests on the testimony of those witnesses and the physical evidence, unless Zimmerman decides to testify.

I am either misunderstanding you or you are off base. Are you saying they could not use Zimmerman's statements to police? They most certainly can use that and it is definitely not hearsay.
Logged
Pappy13
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 8200



« Reply #634 on: July 05, 2012, 12:33:01 pm »

I am either misunderstanding you or you are off base. Are you saying they could not use Zimmerman's statements to police? They most certainly can use that and it is definitely not hearsay.
But Zimmerman's statements to the police are that he was not following Martin. How does that help the prosecution present a case that Zimmerman was following Martin? The prosecution wants to impeach Zimmerman's statements, not validate them. A detective can't get on the stand and simply give his version of the events of that night without any evidence.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2012, 12:56:56 pm by Pappy13 » Logged

That which does not kill me...gives me XP.
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15571


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #635 on: July 05, 2012, 02:24:20 pm »

What are they going to introduce into evidence, the detectives opinion? He can only speculate if he has some evidence to speculate about. What evidence is there that Zimmerman followed Martin?
The part where the dispatcher said "Are you following him?" and Zimmerman said "Yes."

And since we have several posters in this thread (including yourself) who are adamant that statements must be taken at literal value, when the dispatcher said "OK, we don't need you to do that" and Zimmerman replied, "OK," that doesn't mean that he stopped following him, right?

Quote
Let me ask you something Spider and I mean no disrespect, but have you ever attended a trial and watched testimony being given?
I've sat through an entire trial from the jury box.
Logged

Pappy13
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 8200



« Reply #636 on: July 05, 2012, 02:52:47 pm »

The part where the dispatcher said "Are you following him?" and Zimmerman said "Yes."
Fair enough. I'm sure they will use the dispatch call as evidence as well.

And since we have several posters in this thread (including yourself) who are adamant that statements must be taken at literal value, when the dispatcher said "OK, we don't need you to do that" and Zimmerman replied, "OK," that doesn't mean that he stopped following him, right?
Absolutely. It neither confirms nor denies he was following Martin when Martin was killed. At least that's how I interpret that exchange.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2012, 02:59:42 pm by Pappy13 » Logged

That which does not kill me...gives me XP.
el diablo
Guest
« Reply #637 on: July 05, 2012, 06:58:19 pm »

Since we have already ascertained that Zimmerman was well within his rights to follow Martin. He was also well within his rights to even question Martin. The next thing that need to be determined is who initiated physical contact first. That would be the person responsible for this situation in my opinion.

Lets say that I grant you George's "rights".  Someone follows you at night, on foot. After following you in his car. Catches you, and questions you as to why you are in your neighborhood. What would cause you to flip out and attack someone?
Logged
badger6
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 1218



« Reply #638 on: July 05, 2012, 07:37:54 pm »

Lets say that I grant you George's "rights".  Someone follows you at night, on foot. After following you in his car. Catches you, and questions you as to why you are in your neighborhood. What would cause you to flip out and attack someone?

If indeed Zimmerman followed and/or questioned Martin, he in no way broke any laws. If someone followed me and questioned me I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't put my hands on them unless they touched me first.
Logged
el diablo
Guest
« Reply #639 on: July 05, 2012, 09:49:30 pm »

If indeed Zimmerman followed and/or questioned Martin, he in no way broke any laws. If someone followed me and questioned me I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't put my hands on them unless they touched me first.

Thank you. That's all I wanted to know.
Logged
bsmooth
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 4633


I love YaBB 1G - SP1!


« Reply #640 on: July 06, 2012, 01:23:33 am »

Lets say that I grant you George's "rights".  Someone follows you at night, on foot. After following you in his car. Catches you, and questions you as to why you are in your neighborhood. What would cause you to flip out and attack someone?

Most people would say the same thing, that they would not necessarily attack immediately. So since Travon has not history of violence...it could be assumed he probably would not attack Zimmerman either when he was followed and confronted.
But Zimmerman does have a history of violence against others, and we do not know if he was under the influence of anything besides his prescriptions.
Logged
bsmooth
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 4633


I love YaBB 1G - SP1!


« Reply #641 on: July 06, 2012, 01:23:45 am »

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/05/12579030-florida-judge-sets-bond-at-1-million-for-george-zimmerman?lite
Logged
el diablo
Guest
« Reply #642 on: July 06, 2012, 08:54:19 am »

Most people would say the same thing, that they would not necessarily attack immediately. So since Travon has not history of violence...it could be assumed he probably would not attack Zimmerman either when he was followed and confronted.
But Zimmerman does have a history of violence against others, and we do not know if he was under the influence of anything besides his prescriptions.


That's my major point. Its not just about what happened, but why.  Most people wouldn't attack, unless attacked or provoked first. Trayvon had no documented history of violence. Yet, George does.
George was trying to find this kid & find out what he was up to. That puts George in an aggressive position. This also puts Trayvon in a defensive position. Now, at the time of initial confrontation George claims Trayvon spoke first. Saying, "You got a problem?" George then says, "No." And turns to reach for his cell phone. Who turns away from somebody who they were following? Especially when they already called 911.  And the police were already on their way. They were supposed to call him. So, why would he have to reach for his cell phone? The phone didn't ring. So, when it comes to who was "the aggressor", who could reasonably say that Trayvon was?
Logged
Phishfan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15558



« Reply #643 on: July 06, 2012, 10:30:10 am »

Just putting this out there for further discussion.

Zimmerman also says that Martin circled his car during the course of events. That does not sound like someone in a defensive state of mind. If I am scurrying away from someone, I don't circle their car.

Logged
badger6
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 1218



« Reply #644 on: July 06, 2012, 01:52:08 pm »

Most people would say the same thing, that they would not necessarily attack immediately. So since Travon has not history of violence...it could be assumed he probably would not attack Zimmerman either when he was followed and confronted.
But Zimmerman does have a history of violence against others, and we do not know if he was under the influence of anything besides his prescriptions.


I don't think you can presume that. You would probably need proof either way. IMO, the injuries to both or lack there of aren't consistent with that assumption.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 41 42 [43] 44 45 46 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

The Dolphins Make Me Cry - Copyright© 2008 - Designed and Marketed by Dave Gray


Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines