TalkLeft describes "a train wreck" witness:
She said (on direct exam no less by the prosecutor) that shortly after first spotting Zimmerman, Martin described Zimmerman to her as a "Creepy-a*s Cracker" and later, described Zimmerman a few times as "this ni*ga" (as in this ni*ga following him.) The two minute clip above is of Rachel and the prosecutor repeating creepy a*s cracker over and over as the court reporter struggles to make out what she's saying, Rachel explaining that creepy as* cracker means a white person, then and expressing concern the creepy guy might be a rapist.So "cracker" is a way of saying white guy, but "ni*ga" is apparently just a way to say guy? I can understand that, but I'd like to ask a few questions — out of curiosity. I'm not saying the defense lawyer should ask this on cross-examination. (Which should make for some interesting TV today.) I'd like to know whether perhaps Trayvon Martin perceived Zimmerman as a person of color and not a white man at all. You assume that there's no way he'd say "cracker" if he didn't see him as white? But he didn't say "cracker." He said "creepy ass cracker." I understand the use of "ass" as an intensifier connected to the adjective "creepy." Creepy-ass cracker, as in very creepy cracker.
But "ass" could go with "cracker" — "ass-cracker." The conversation continued, according to Jeantel: "So... he told me the man was looking at him, so I had to think it might have been a rapist."
Why rapist? A man raping a man? How common is that as a fear? But it was the first thing Jeantel thought to say after he said creepy-ass cracker/creepy ass-cracker. The term "ass cracker" could easily mean a man who rapes a man, especially one who goes after a teenaged boy.
Urban Dictionary has some definitions of "ass cracker" that predate this trial:
1. ass cracker...The word "creepy" makes special sense if you reinterpret the "ass" to go with "cracker." Martin said a man was following him, looking at him. He might have thought Zimmerman was a man out looking for sex and was watching him for that reason. What conversations had Martin had in the past with Jeantel about worries of this kind. She "had to think it might have been a rapist."
One who not knowing the code or combination to a particular slice of ass is nonetheless able to get inside the ass...
2. Ass Cracker...
One who engages in anal sex.
That wanker is an ass cracker.
3. Ass Cracker...
A term used to describe a man with a large enough penis, to brake the anus of the woman or man he is having anal intercourse with.
"Damn, his's cock is so big, he is definatly an ass cracker!"
TalkLeft says:
She describes how Martin was "right by his father's house" after he lost Zimmerman, and refused to run home. I think he had plenty of time to go home, he obviously chose not to....Why didn't Martin take Jeantel's advice and run home? The rapist/ass-cracker theory makes sense of Martin's decision to go after Zimmerman. If he saw Zimmerman as a sexual predator, he might think confrontation was a good idea or even an important step: These creeps in the neighborhood need to know that I'm not their prey. It's not enough to run inside daddy's house. My manhood must be established here and now or I can't walk free around here anymore.
Posts
570 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 570 of 570I'm just going to have to assume that all your material in this post attempting to change "creepy-ass cracker" into "homosexual rapist" is a puerile attempt at humor.
Every one in that courtroom, everyone watching on TV,and everyone reading this post knows that was a racist comment by Martin and, probably, by this witness. Because it black on white racism it doesn't count. Or it needs an in depth analysis. It does not, you crazy-ass cracker.
The 911 operator who took Zimmerman's call said that he had no concerns about Zimmerman's anger, in fact he stated Zimmerman was calm:
The testimony on cross examination by dispatcher Sean Noffke
O'Mara: "Do you hear any anger in [Zimmerman's] voice?" Noffke: "No sir.
O'Mara: "You are trained to get a sense of the caller?" Noffke: "Yes sir."
Quotation of “These punks always get away." O'Mara: "You hear any anger?" Noffke: "Sounds calm to me."
O'Mara: "You wanted Zimmerman to tell you what path TM took?" Noffke: "Yes."
O'Mara: "After he said Martin was gone, did you hear any anger in his voice?" Noffke: "No sir."
O'Mara: "Any concern in how Zimmerman presented to you?" Noffke: "No sir."
O'Mara: "Any concern about Zimmerman's cursing?" Noffke: "No sir."
"Based upon your six years of doing this, if you ask someone which way someone else is running, they may actually go find out?," O'Mara asked.
"My intent was to get a location for the officer," Noffke said. "I can understand if someone interpreted it in a different way. I can't control how they interpret the words."
He is white though, so tradguy can hate on him.
When will these goofy race-obsessed people admit they fell for a con?
traditionalguy said...
The Opening statement forms the jurors first impression of the reason they are there. They drink it in eagerly.
I'm not a lawyer, but I've been a juror quite a few times. May I ask what type of law you specialize in, and have you ever been a juror? A lot of what you a proffering is absolute nonsense from my point of view based solely on my court room experiences.
400?
That's all we got on this?
I'm immensely disappointed.
Well, maybe not "immensely", but, Althouse has used that word a few times and now its in my frontal cortex rolodex.
But Z wanted to be this neighborhood's hero. He needed a purpose too.
I'd appreciate a link to whatever lead you t o believe this.
So Z had begun to do what Crackers did after the 1920s KKK meetings.
I'd like to think this is beneath you.
PMJ... I am real. I happen to like Hispanics and they like me. Egyptians also like me. What does that tell you.
Our Black cousins are not all alike. Some are are good and sweet Christians, like Herman Cain, or some can be a tad racist since I do look to them like a blonde, blue eyed, muscle bound, aggressive Scots-Irish cracker. That look is one of my progressive Jew tricks.
Miami is not Atlanta. so maybe the Seminole county culture would make me more wary of BLACKS. But I doubt it.
The black Sanford PD NWP coordinator offered Zimmerman the chance to be in a "Citizen on Patrol" program where he would have been given and an unmarked car and training to allow him to effectively patrol his neighborhood. Zimmerman declined.
The "wanna be" cop meme died.
traditionalguy said...
Pleses nobody tell the PCUSA.
A fellow Presbyterian. Apparently we have been assimilated by progressive Jews.
So Z had begun to do what Crackers did after the 1920s KKK meetings.
What type of pathetic low life do you have to be to say this.
Tradguy is a racist pig.
Tradguy: "Just wandering about is not disciplined enough for the Neighborhood watch that is designed for the old folks neighborhoods."
Is this an "old folks" neighborhood?
Has that been established?
Or is tradguy simply winging it...again?
LOL
Tradguy: "They say call the Police to come and jack up strangers."
Has this every happened in this neighborhood?
Tradguy: "But Z forgot he had no authority to track strange men in the dark and shoot them if they needed shooting."
Wow.
Simply wow.
You posts are literally becoming unhinged.
Tradguy: "So Z had begun to do what Crackers did after the 1920s KKK meetings."
Beyond. Parody.
Tradguy: "aybe I really am turning into one of C4's Progressive Jews. My Law School always comes in about 20 on the USNWR lists, and many of my Professors there were progressive Jews. Pleses nobody tell the PCUSA."
LOL
"PCUSA"!!!
I attended a PCUSA church in Atlanta.
One of the Sunday school teachers made it plain to all that he did not actually believe that Christ was the Christ.
In fact, he didn't even believe much in God.
When I asked him, good naturedly of course, how it is that he attends this church and, even more importantly, attempts to LEAD Christians in thoughtful analysis of their faith, he just stared at me and told me that no one had asked him that questions before.
LOL
So I wouldn't sweat it Tradguy.
Drago said...
I attended a PCUSA church in Atlanta.
One of the Sunday school teachers made it plain to all that he did not actually believe that Christ was the Christ.
In fact, he didn't even believe much in God.
This sounds about right, yet still good people.
Trad Guy, "no authority to track strange men in the dark and shoot them..." Following someone is not the same action as shooting them-they are two different actions, one does not necessarily follow the other. Anyone is allowed to follow someone and ask them what they are doing. The "askee" can tell them to buzz off, leave me alone, but is not allowed to attack them. The trial is about whether Z had a right to shoot M in self-defense, not if Z had a right to follow M and talk to him.
I'm not a lawyer, but I've been a juror quite a few times. May I ask what type of law you specialize in, and have you ever been a juror? A lot of what you a proffering is absolute nonsense from my point of view based solely on my court room experiences.
Agreed. The jury I have been on was very skeptical about everything at the start of the trial, including especially the opening statements.
Any juror that buys in on the opening statement is like the guy on Match.com convinced every woman is a 5'4 French model.
AllenS said...
Isn't Rachel Jeantel a typical stereotype?
Sure enough...the horror is the realization that Rachel can vote.
ARM: "This sounds about right, yet still good people."
I'm not saying he wasn't.
As a newcomer to the church, it surprised me that someone so vocal about their lack of belief was in an educational and LEADERSHIP position in teaching about the faith.
My point, if it isn't obvious, is that even a complete lack of Christian beliefs is not barrier to "success" and leadership in the PCUSA.
That might, or might not, tell you something about where that church is and is heading.
Aridog: "Sure enough...the horror is the realization that Rachel can vote."
Multiple times.
AllenS...I did trial work for 14 years in Atlanta. I was good at it. After that I did business law and Commercial Real Estate and banking law for up and coming Developers. I became Chairman of the Board of a Community bank started by some friends. (We sold out in time.)
Maybe you did not realise what made you interpret the evidence the way you did as a juror? Someone gave you context and a narrative to evaluate the raw data that was to be presented later. That was the lawyers. I bet the Judge stayed neutral, hopefully, and never hinted what to believe, but gave you the case and said go out and come back with a verdict.
Then in the jury room you picked a foreman, maybe yourself, who then told everyone what lawyers you believed presented the best case and they followed your lead.
Lawyers reverse engineer that process.
Would a half-Hispanic guy even be allowed in the 1920's KKK?
Unfortunately, Robert Byrd, liberal Democrat senator and hero is not available to answer that pressing question.
and, MadisonMan, jurors are instructed that you are not supposed to talk about the case while the trial is going on. Only after closing statements, when you return to your deliberating room can you discuss the case. If that time is days (and I hate to thinks months) after the opening statements, you'll never remember them.
How about it tradguy, what type of law do you deal with?
I see you answered, I've noticed that oftentimes, simple testimony from witnesses will make or break the case, and they are believeable and nonbelieveable without hardly any questioning about their statements. Some are not believeable. Like this dumb-ass bitch that has been testifying lately in the Zimmerman case.
By the way, sometime in the late 1970's I took a lawyer in front of the Minnesota Bar Association and beat him.
I think, with a little concerted effort and diligence, with a willingness to break up complete coherent thoughts into multiple sub-thoughts (coherent or not), we can get this thread to 500 comments.
Then, years later, as you rock on your porch with your great-grandchildren at your knee, you can say: "That Althouse thread, the one that caused all that trouble way back when? Yeah. I was there...."
Another "ear-witness," as I'm hearing these folks called, is up next. So: what part of the narrative will this one disrupt? Number of shots fired? What clothes the fighters were wearing? The amount of yelling?
@Drago...I like you. The PCUSA has its anti-christ type members, and we freely love them too. Presbys let any one believe whatever the want to believe. Then we hit them over the head with Calvinism ideas, recite the Apostles creed, and fellowship away. Jesus will fix it when he gets back.
But we learn a lot from them.
Try Peachtree Presbyterian Church.
Ya know it's probably inadmissible, but George Zimmerman is the guy who stuck up for the black guy who was assaulted by either a SPD officer or relative of one months -- a year or so? -- before the Martin shooting.
As I said, probably inadmissible, but I wish the folk on the list who are so committed to GZ being a profiling racist would refresh their brain screens a little and contemplate the cognitive dissonance that should create wrt their certainty that this was an attack for racism (the prosecutor's claim).
Our Black cousins are not all alike
Apparently all neighborhood watch participants are, though.
If the fact that Martin is dead was dependent on a prosecution witness, the guy would walk through the door today.
According to testimony today, Rachel Jeantel cannot read or write. That has to put some butt-hurt on the opening statements.
Looks like the current prosecution witness is also helping Zimmerman, by also admitting that she is unsure where street names start and end and that, actually, it is kind of hard to see her address from the street, despite what the prosecution wanted to imply.
I didn't see that part of the testimony Matthew. Interesting that the media tweet I saw said that she helped the prosecutors by saying that the street numbers were visible.
AReasonableMan said...
traditionalguy said...
Pleses nobody tell the PCUSA.
A fellow Presbyterian. Apparently we have been assimilated by progressive Jews.
===================
No one is arguing that you and Trad Guy are progressive Jews. It's not like you are puppetmaster owners of the media that hatch the "national justice for Tawana, raped Nubian Princess Crystal, adorable 'skittles' child Trayvon". That push these socially destructive Narratives to make the masses more distracted and easier to manipulate.
Nor are any saying you are black racists.
You're simply just two pretty stupid white guys that have been suckered by the race baiters,
Huh; the tweets I had said that when asked she said there was a bush in the way, and later, it said that she said from some ways you could see it: "#Zimmerman Trial Day 4: Lauer: "See that bush? It blocks address." Ouch, Bernie. http://is.gd/5HInTk" @LawSelfDefense
Cedarford said...
No one is arguing that you and Trad Guy are progressive Jews.
You're simply just two pretty stupid white guys that have been suckered by the race baiters,
OK. Glad you clarified that. I feel a lot better now.
Allen S ...we are not disagreeing about jury deliberation as a group starting literally at the end of the trial. That is when they discover that if other jurors think like them or not. Than the strongest personality(it was likely you) is asked to lead and is made Foreman/Forperson for deliberations. Leadership is known to be a burden, like in the 82nd Airborne. We have side bets on who the Foreman will be.And we talk to them as directly as we can get away with it.
But for weeks the trial Courtroom and the place where they eat is full of signals from body language to facial expressions as they say good morning etc. And that unspoken attitude is favorable to one side or the other, except for an occasional stonefaced poker player that we ran out of strikes for.
Ann's such a homosexual activist now, she can't even perceive the plain sense of RJ's words. Sees a sodomite behind every bush.
@LawSelfDefense is a great tweet account to follow for live tweets. I'm RT'ing a bunch of them.
To show how screwy the prosecution's witnesses are, apparently, the prosecution just got up to impeach their own witness's knowledge of the facts to try and downplay the fact her testimony made it look like Zimmerman was attacked.
Yeah. Huge win for Zimmerman's team on this witness.
I can't believe this was a witness for the state. On re-direct, the state attorney was trying to minimize the testimony OF THE STATES WITNESS!
This would be comical if a man's freedom wasn't at stake.
But TraditionalBitch, tell us all how this was such a huge win for the prosecution. Love to hear it.
Some jurors are so prejudiced, that no matter what testimony that they watch, they still think that they have it figured out, contrary to all the evidence. I hate to break this to you, but most jurors don't even consider what the lawyers have to say.
I have been the jury foreman before and on this last trial that I was on last month, I turned down the foreman request from the other jurors and recommended someone who had been taking more notes than everyone else. Unfortunately, when deliberations started, I found out that he had his mind made up before the trial even started, and although we were instructed not to Google the people being tried he must have because he also knew that there was going to be a civil trial (lawsuit) after the criminal trial was over.
You realize that more and more people don't believe the state don't you?
Cedarford, you want to frame this trial only in terms of race but this is of not interest to me. My problem is with armed vigilantes. I can't see Zimmerman getting away with this killing without a manslaughter conviction as a step forward for a civil society. I don't want soft incompetent stupid people going around killing innocent citizens without penalty. I can hold and defend this view completely independently of whatever race the participants may have been.
Sorry, but the reason that there are people like Zimmerman is because we no longer have a civil society in a lot of our cities.
AllenS said...
Sorry, but the reason that there are people like Zimmerman is because we no longer have a civil society in a lot of our cities.
Do you genuinely see Zimmerman's actions as a template that we should follow?
Do you see the militarization of our police forces as a template that we should follow?
AllenS said...
Do you see the militarization of our police forces as a template that we should follow?
Obviously not.
"So Z had begun to do what Crackers did after the 1920s KKK meetings."
I'd like to think this is beneath you.
But sadly it isn't.
Unreasonably Homophobic Bitch says
Do you genuinely see Zimmerman's actions as a template that we should follow?
Yes. I want citizens to care about their communities and get involved to make them a safer and better place.
I want people who assault people in the streets, slamming their heads into concrete, to know that their actions have consequences.
The country would be an infinitely better place with more George Zimmermans and less Trayvon Martins.
At least there is one less now.
I'd rather see more citizens of neighborhoods providing a sense of protection for the law-abiding citizens than police that you have to call and then wait for their arrival.
Allen S...Can you imagine getting Revenant as one of your Jurors?
Rev could get both lawyers, the Judge, the baliffs, Deputy clerk, and all the other jurors cited for imprecise thinking in public.
But first he would have to listen to our neandrthal witnesses. I bet he would ring the bell three times by the second day of that.
To sum up: If Martin attacked Zimmerman because of racial animus (crazy ass Cracker) that isn't racism it's just how Black people talk, but if Zimmerman followed Martin because of racial profiling (most robberies in the neighborhood were committed by Blacks) that is racism. If Zimmerman is guilty of racial profiling he is guilty of murder.
But if Martin was actually concerned about being raped, that certainly introduces the element of doubt about who was the aggressor physically. And Martin did have the look of a pretty boy, especially when he was younger. Like Obama, who also was lithe and pretty, perhaps Martin had faced innuendoes of being gay or bisexual.
Kids are always trying to use slang which is unique and not commonly known to uncool people, so perhaps he really did mean ass-cracker.
There's certainly an element of doubt about who attacked first and that would exonerate Zimmerman.
The jury I have been on was very skeptical about everything at the start of the trial, including especially the opening statements.
Same here. I do kind of love that t-guy is presenting himself as a great judge of personalities, though, in light of his behavior regarding this case.
AllenS said...
I'd rather see more citizens of neighborhoods providing a sense of protection for the law-abiding citizens than police that you have to call and then wait for their arrival.
I understand the sentiment, it is the practical implementation that is problematic.
AReasonableMan said...
Cedarford, you want to frame this trial only in terms of race but this is of not interest to me. My problem is with armed vigilantes. I can't see Zimmerman getting away with this killing without a manslaughter conviction as a step forward for a civil society. I don't want soft incompetent stupid people going around killing innocent citizens without penalty. I can hold and defend this view completely independently of whatever race the participants may have been.
=====================
Race is relevant in that the reason why people are arming, why neighborhood watch programs exist - is because crime is tied to race and socioeconomic strata.
Race is relevant because we profile. We profile not just young black thugs but also hispanics from outside the neighborhood obviously not working any jobs at 11PM in a neighbors back yard, or some white that is screaming "no good meth addict".
And we profile because we lack the resources to hire all the Hero government workers people like you think should be the only ones allowed to challenge or even watch such miscreants as Trayvon.
And everytime a thug like Trayvon is shot by a citizen they try and jump, a homeowner catches a burglar at gunpoint, a meth head is followed by an alert citizen that determines a lady's purse he has makes him suspicious? Good. Public safety cannot rest on just "hero government security employees" anymore than public health is "only for the hero doctors to deal with". We don't have the money to put hero cops on every street corner.
And what makes you think that Trayvon, who appears to have been a criminal before this incident, and was the one that initiated a physical attack....is an innocent citizen??
Or is it only because the race baiters told you Trayvon was an innocent angel...stupid white man!!
Cedarford said...
And what makes you think that Trayvon, who appears to have been a criminal before this incident, and was the one that initiated a physical attack....is an innocent citizen??
Or is it only because the race baiters told you Trayvon was an innocent angel...stupid white man!!
So you have several invalid points and one valid point. The valid point is that I would not have known about this case without the racial polarization that lead to the reopening of the criminal investigation. This being said, I am perfectly capable of forming my own opinions. The problem is that you have prejudged the case based on your own biases. It is not established beyond doubt who initiated the conflict. My personal view is that it was Zimmerman, the minute he got out of the truck and started following Martin. It is reasonably well established that Martin was already fearful of Zimmerman before this point.
No 17-year old male is an angel.
Revenant...Where were you in the 1920s? The Leo Frank case was very real here in Atlanta in 1915. (See, And The Dead Shall Rise by Steve Oney in Amazon Books.)
A masked mob kidnapped and lynched an innocent Jewish convict whose sentence had been commuted to life by Governor Slaton. Then the KKK (with all of the Cobb County poitician's in the mob) marched out to Buckhead to lynch Governor Slaton at his Mansion until the Georgia National guard met them in his front yard them with more gunsthan the mob had.
That happened where I grew up, and made Atlantans since that time oppose KKK tactics.
ARM: "The problem is that you have prejudged the case based on your own biases."
Stop it!!
You're killing me!!
LOL
Oh, wait, what?
You weren't directing that comment to Tradguy?
Wow.
I took a lawyer in front of the Minnesota Bar Association and beat him.
Damn, I would have bought tickets to see that!!
Did you send him to the hospital or the morgue?
Ann, why are you putting that asterisk in the word "nig*a"? Is it some sort of magically sanctified word now, the way "G-d" ("god") is to Orthodox Jews? Pardon my cynicism, but I think it's just a word. It has an edgy overtone, sure -- but can we please stop tiptoeing around it like servile whipping boys? Nigga. Nigga. See? Nothing happened to me. Just a thought. Thanks for the yeoman's work on your fine blog over the years.
See? Nothing happened to me. Just a thought.
The IRS audit and follow up drone strike are in the works.
I would ask those who doubt Zimmerman acted in self defense to attempt to inflict on themselves the head wounds, the closed head injuries, that Zimmerman incurred. Plus break your own nose.
I would doubt there is a commenter on Althouse who would have the self discipline to do either.
And yet Zimmerman had both a broken nose and closed head injuries. The body of TM had no such injuries. A bullet wound, yes, but no injuries that could be, would be, sustained in a fight. Except, of course, for his knuckles.
Mathew Sablan,
She doesn't want to be part of the legal proceedings because she has perjured herself and, frankly, has every right to be worried that she might face consequences.
In what universe?
A black woman, in *this* case, indicted for obvious perjury? It is to laugh.
ha ha. That's the best I can muster.
And yet Zimmerman had both a broken nose and closed head injuries. The body of TM had no such injuries. A bullet wound, yes, but no injuries that could be, would be, sustained in a fight. Except, of course, for his knuckles.
All you give us facts, facts, facts. What matters is the narrative.
Michael said...
The body of TM had no such injuries. A bullet wound, yes,
That bullet wound is no small detail.
She reminds me of my previous Real Estate Broker, who is like 50.
ARM:"That bullet wound is no small detail." No shit.
Nor is the condition of Zimmerman and the condition of Martin's knuckles and the absence of injuries to TM. These would suggest to the logical mind the fact that TM just possibly could have been the aggressor, the guy who circled back to have a word with the cracker.
But the view is better up there on the high horse. Can't argue that.
Talk about your soft bigotry of low expectations. Compare Rachel, American teen, to the kid in the Rutgers case. With her, it's all about how her culture accepts this kind of language and her demeanor is due to her age.
Yet the India-born immigrant male was given no such understanding. He was held responsible for an American boy's behavior!
It is interesting how these lawyers wear over time. I initially found the bald mustached prosecutor to be the least impressive of the various lawyers who have spoken but his mildness and matter of fact manner wear better over time. He has missed a lot of opportunities to press his advantage but has gained a measure of likability in return.
I chose inner peace instead
growing sourdough, baking bread
and you would too if you had a head for such things as inner peace.
No link for you. Your vibes are all wrong.
AReasonableMan said...
My personal view is that it was Zimmerman, the minute he got out of the truck and started following Martin
What a good little dependent. Getting out of your truck negates the right to self-defense.
ARM - " It is not established beyond doubt who initiated the conflict. My personal view is that it was Zimmerman, the minute he got out of the truck and started following Martin.
To promote the Narrative, you spout lefty bullshit like following someone is the initiation of a violent & deadly fight.
Not in the law.
A storekeeper following a thug's movements inside the store may "diss" the thug, but gives the miscreant no legal cause to punch the storekeeper's face in.
A stabbing in a bar is not dismissed because "Theh person I done stabbed caused it because he should have done stay'd in de car and not come in here an' look at me all funny and shit...Don't blame me for shivin' his ass".
To swallow your BS, ARM, means people have to swallow they have no right to have a neighborhood watch, no right to ever leave their homes or cars in doing patrols or following or watching a suspicious person. Or that storeowners and security in stores cannot track the activities of someone that looks like they are up to no good.
Revenant...Where were you in the 1920s? The Leo Frank case was very real here in Atlanta in 1915
I support Zimmerman because I don't hold with putting innocent men on trial for murder just to satisfy a racist mob.
Where would I stand on putting an innocent man on trial for murder to satisfy a Jew-hating mob? I think I'll let you guess. :)
Sure enough...the horror is the realization that Rachel can vote.
How many times per election?
/ edutcher trolling
Dang, Drago beat me to it! That's what I get for taking a nap....
f the fact that Martin is dead was dependent on a prosecution witness, the guy would walk through the door today.
Bagoh wins the thread!
Cedarford said...
To swallow your BS, ARM, means people have to swallow they have no right to have a neighborhood watch, no right to ever leave their homes or cars in doing patrols or following or watching a suspicious person. Or that storeowners and security in stores cannot track the activities of someone that looks like they are up to no good.
No it doesn't mean any of these things. Zimmerman had initiated contact with Martin by sight from his car, the man and the boy were aware of each other. Zimmerman viewed Martin as a sufficiently serious threat to public safety to require immediate police attention. By getting out of his car with a gun Zimmerman initiated a sequence of events that resulted in the death of an innocent unarmed teenager.
I view the death of Martin as manslaughter due to incompetence on the part of Zimmerman, not murder. Most normal men would not have ended up killing Martin when placed in the same initial circumstances (in the car, armed, on the phone to the police).
It is not established beyond doubt who initiated the conflict.
That means of course, that the jury must acquit.
I'd rather see more citizens of neighborhoods providing a sense of protection for the law-abiding citizens than police that you have to call and then wait for their arrival.
The problem is that the neighbors haven't all figured this out yet. If they had, they'd have had a lime pit nearby for disposal of bodies....
That means of course, that the jury must acquit.
And there you have it in a nutshell.
Even if it were plausible that Martin wasn't the assailant, the fact that it is plausible that he WAS the assailant means no reasonable jury can convict Zimmerman of second-degree murder. The prosecution knew that from day one and charged him anyway -- disgraceful.
Nonsense, Icepick. If future criminals know that local people from the neighborhood are constantly on patrol, they won't come around.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but if you have to call 911 it's probably too late to save your cracker ass crack.
ARM believes the government is blameless in Benghazi. He is a big believer in sitting back, letting bad things happen to good people, and then telliing oneself one did one's best.
So of course he will not relate to Zimmerman, and his attempts to make life a little safer for the non-wealthy people of Sanford, Florida.
MayBee said...
of course he will not relate to Zimmerman, and his attempts to make life a little safer for the non-wealthy people of Sanford, Florida.
It is notable that several people from the gated community have already testified. Only one was sympathetic to Zimmerman, the rest seemed pretty unsympathetic. If nothing else he managed to crash local property values.
The prosecution knew that from day one and charged him anyway -- disgraceful.
The State Attorney for that district did not indict Zimmerman. It wasn't until the race baiters and the President (redundant, I know) got involved that the Governor got scared and appointed another State Attorney to indict. I'm sure the goal was to indict for First Degree Murder, but even this prosecutor brought in solely for expediency couldn't quite stretch it that far.
If future criminals know that local people from the neighborhood are constantly on patrol, they won't come around.
I don't think you got my point.
ARM. He was not doing this watch ad hoc. His gated community wanted him there.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but if you have to call 911 it's probably too late to save your cracker ass crack.
How bad is your neighborhood? Has your house ever been invaded?
AReasonableMan said...
It is notable that several people from the gated community have already testified. Only one was sympathetic to Zimmerman, the rest seemed pretty unsympathetic
Really?
What are the names of the "unsympathetic" witnesses and what did they say?
Or, are you just making shit up?
Icepick,
Isn't it better to learn from others' experiences?
Zimmerman had initiated contact with Martin by sight from his car
WTF does this stupidity even mean?
It is nonsensical and self refuting.
My closest neighbor is 1/4 mile away.
Michael said...
ARM. He was not doing this watch ad hoc. His gated community wanted him there.
Clearly, from the trial testimony, most people had no clue who he was. A fact that would not be least bit surprising if you had ever lived in a place like this.
ARM. They wanted him there. They had a community procedure to have him there. We have an off duty cop in my neighborhood. I couldnt recognize him from Adam.
Clearly, from the trial testimony,
Seriously? Have you been following the testimony so far? No, no you haven't.
I'm seeing that Zimmerman's parents aren't be allowed to attend the trial, but, aren't Martin's parents allowed to be there?
tradguy's comments on this case stem from racism.
the woman posting as "areasonableman" offers comments out of stupidity.
I am still not sure who, between them, is more stupid.
Trayvon defenders, he was at home. Why didn't he go inside?
How did he end up back in the area where he was shot.
Doesn't that suggest that he actually went back to find Zimmerman and not that Zimmerman found him?
Because otherwise the fight would have occurred in front of Trayvons house and not a block away.
Not sure who is more stupid, but the woman posting as unreasonablebitch certainly is the more homophobic.
Why don't you just call Zimmerman a "faggot" like you do with other people you don't like, you tolerant lefty you?
Isn't it better to learn from others' experiences?
Two points:
First, one isn't always given that option.
Second, I find it odd when other people tell me how I should behave in a situation for which I have experienced and they don't.
Go ahead, Icepick, tell us about your experiences. This will explain a lot. I'm guessing you'll have a lot of victim stories.
jr565 said...
Trayvon defenders, he was at home. Why didn't he go inside?
Stop asking these questions!
Zimmerman was out shooting innocent people so shut up!
This is a pretty dumb ass theory Ann.
When you have to try that your own witness might have bias, you have a problem.
Michael said...
ARM. They wanted him there.
This is a community in a very loose sense of the word. None of the witnesses to date knew who Zimmerman was. They are working people with busy lives. It is clear that Zimmerman's shooting of Martin has not impressed, in a positive way, most of the witnesses that have testified so far. Having someone shoot an unarmed teen outside your back door will have that effect.
In the live conference, apparently, Martin's parents are listed as witnesses. I thought witnesses weren't allowed to be present for other witnesses' testimony?
My mother's house was invaded in 2008. A neighbor watched the whole thing happen and didn't do shit. Didn't do shit AFTERWARDS, either, until the police questioned her canvassing the neighborhood. She told the cops who did it. (!!) The cops politely knocked on the door of the home invaders, asked if they could search. They found nothing, which the witness told them would be the case because another man had driven away with the goods, paltry though they were. That guy lived a two blocks back, but she wasn't sure of the address.
The cops thanked the witness, did nothing to the perps, and I got called to come across town in the middle of the night and guard the broken door.
You can talk all you want about neighbors helping out, but neighbors are generally worthless. Oh, except for the ones that are criminals. The witness lived next door. Some of the perps lived on the other side of HER, which is how she recognized them.
So, for the record, the neighbors that weren't perps were useless. The cops were useless. In this case, firearms for the people in the house (my mother, my brother) would have done them no good either, because the perps were in the house before they could have responded.
So, tell me, what is to be learned from this experience? Answer: People telling you to depend on others are fucking idiots. People telling you to depend on guns don't take into account realistic situations - the gun owner frequently is frequently taken at unawares. Cops are completely worthless, and the sacks of shit should be fired.
Those are the lessons learned.
AReasonableMan said...
It is clear that Zimmerman's shooting of Martin has not impressed, in a positive way, most of the witnesses that have testified so far.
One more time, tell me who the witnesses are that have testified so far from this neighborhood.
Full stop.
Has a witness even testified to seeing the moment Martin was shot? I really wonder what value any of these witnesses have been. No one has doubted that there was a violent scuffle followed by a single, fatal shot.
A few weeks before that happened, my own house got burglarized.
A few weeks after that happened, one of my wife's co-workers had a bad thing happen to his wife - but not too bad, thankfully. His wife was coming home from the grocery store one afternoon with the kids in the back of the car. She pulls up to the house, opens the garage door and pulls in. She gets out of the car and unlocks the house door. As she opens it, a man jumps her and tries to wrestle her into the house. She hadn't seen that he had been hiding in the bushes next to the garage door and sneaked in behind her. Somehow she managed to scare him off (she was lucky that she hadn't started closing the garage door - a passerby heard the ruckus) after a short struggle and she and the kids got away unharmed. As far as I know, no one was ever caught for this.
The husband was obviously shaken up by this. They lived in a good neighborhood, it was daylight, IT WAS THEIR OWN HOME, yada yada.
He wanted to buy his wife a gun. Understandable, but it wouldn't have worked in this case unless she got out of her car with the weapon already out and ready, looking for perps. If it had been in her purse, it would have at best been hanging off her shoulder when she got jumped.
That time a neighbor did help, but merely by being there - no patrol, no guns, no neighborhood watch, none of that. Just someone being there to say, "Hey, what's going on there?" Again, if she had closed the garage door before getting out of her car....
It is clear that Zimmerman's shooting of Martin has not impressed, in a positive way, most of the witnesses that have testified so far.
"Most"? Not "all"?
So... you're saying that some of the witnesses called by the prosecution were positively impressed by Zimmerman's shooting of Martin? :)
ARM wrote". This is a community in a very loose sense of the word. None of the witnesses to date knew who Zimmerman was. They are working people with busy lives. It is clear that Zimmerman's shooting of Martin has not impressed, in a positive way, most of the witnesses that have testified so far. Having someone shoot an unarmed teen outside your back door will have that effect."
Doesnt matter. They wanted him there. No one wanted the outcome. Perhaps they feel guilty for wanting him there. So whether they had "busy lives " is irrelevant. That they didnt know him is irrelevant. They wanted him there. To protect their property.
Icepick said...
So, tell me, what is to be learned from this experience? Answer: People telling you to depend on others are fucking idiots.
People telling you to rely on cops live in nice safe neighborhoods and would rather you die than curtail their moral preening.
Has a witness even testified to seeing the moment Martin was shot?
One did yesterday, sort of. Her testimony conflicts with the medical examiner's report and all the other witness testimony, though, so make of that what you will.
Jesus, Icepick, you could use about 25 George Zimmermans in your neighborhood. You are aware, aren't you, that people like George Z are not paid. You can't have a bigger police presence because cities cannot afford to have more police with their present pay and retirement funds that need to be paid for by taxpayers. Some cities have no choice but to not hire any more police because they are facing bankruptcy.
What else would you like to see in your neighborhood that will make you feel safer?
Icepick said...
So, tell me, what is to be learned from this experience? Answer: People telling you to depend on others are fucking idiots. People telling you to depend on guns don't take into account realistic situations - the gun owner frequently is frequently taken at unawares. Cops are completely worthless, and the sacks of shit should be fired.
I largely agree with this. As a general principle our best defense is to create the most civil society that we can. Stable families, good schools, well paying jobs, institutions that favor shared sacrifice like churches and unions and policies that favor egalitarianism over enormous wealth disparities.
That's an impressive list of names, ARM. Let's take a look at these people and their testimony, so far, shall we --
ARM witnesses
People telling you to rely on cops live in nice safe neighborhoods and would rather you die than curtail their moral preening.
I am well aware of that.
AllenS said...
One more time, tell me who the witnesses are that have testified so far from this neighborhood.
Wasn't aware that court reporter was my role. From the internet.
Chad Joseph
Don O'Brien
Selene Bahadoor
Jayne Surdyka
Jeannee Manalo
Jenna Lauer
Selma Mora
Jesus, Icepick, you could use about 25 George Zimmermans in your neighborhood.
All I need, 25 creepy-assed crackers wandering around in the dark following each other.
You are aware, aren't you, that people like George Z are not paid.
No shit! I had no idea. I thought he was pulling down six figures to make his neighborhood safer.
You can't have a bigger police presence
Thank God, they're only slightly better than the crooks.
because cities cannot afford to have more police with their present pay and retirement funds that need to be paid for by taxpayers. Some cities have no choice but to not hire any more police because they are facing bankruptcy.
Not a problem in Orange County Florida. As long as there are rich tourists to fleece we'll have plenty of revenue.
What else would you like to see in your neighborhood that will make you feel safer?
More white families. Anyone that would answer that differently is lying. Or is that too blunt? If it is, go look up some stats on violent crime rates between the races. But just having more white people isn't a guarantee of anything, which is why I specified families. We have a few creepy white dudes living in the area. They're child molesters who have problems finding places to live.
As a general principle our best defense is to create the most civil society that we can. Stable families, good schools, well paying jobs, institutions that favor shared sacrifice like churches and unions and policies that favor egalitarianism over enormous wealth disparities.
Let me guess, you vote straight (D) every time - unless there's an actual socialist on the ballot, I'm sure.
Icepick said...
Let me guess, you vote straight (D) every time - unless there's an actual socialist on the ballot, I'm sure.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the conditions I described were a reasonable description of conditions as they existed in the 1950's.
It is reasonably well established that Martin was already fearful of Zimmerman before this point.
Which is totally explained by the fact that Martin ran out of Zimmerman's sight, toward the town home he was staying in no less, only to come back towards Zimmerman.
The interesting question is whether the defense should put Zimmerman on the stand. The conventional wisdom is that you should not do that unless it is absolutely necessary. It seems to me - as an amateur observer - that the defense is better off trying the case on reasonable doubt rather than on whether Zimmerman is telling the truth. Remember Rumpole!
Zimmerman had initiated contact with Martin by sight from his car,
That's right! Don't stare at those negros, they may get all mad!
I love the fact that the woman posting under the handle "areasonableman" is criticizing Zimmerman by suggesting that blacks are easily provoked like wild animals.
Hey guys. The reason I said Z was into KKK tactics is what you are shoveling as a needed power.: vigilantism.
The need for extra legal process to discipline Bad Black Boys started the KKK. Buit it got out of hand fast. It turned into a terror system to intimidate people who treated black men as humans...and then Catholics immigrants like Italians, and finally the Jews who really infuriated the SOBs.
We have legal system. Use it. It's imperfect, but it is not insane sadists.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the conditions I described were a reasonable description of conditions as they existed in the 1950's.
Yes, and that Democratic Party relates to this one how?
"Creepy-Ass Dolls is full of twisted little porcelain and plastic playmates with chilling thoughts, sinister plans, and disturbing enjoyments, whether it's becoming future fashion designers of clothes that eat skin or giving murder hugs."
http://www.amazon.com/Creepy-Ass-Dolls-Stacey-Leigh-Brooks/dp/1440215693
ARM. "Correct me if I am wrong, but the conditions I described were a reasonable description of conditions as they existed in the 1950's"
Awesome! Lets bomb all the factories in Europe and Japan so we can take back manufacturing to the 50s. Worked then.
Awesome! Lets bomb all the factories in Europe and Japan so we can take back manufacturing to the 50s. Worked then.
I wasn't going to bother mentioning that, or the different demographics of the nation. (You know, the demographics that the Dems hate and that they want, to an individual, to completely change.)
I saw a good chunk of Jenteal's testimony. I don't know about Trayvon, but if she got involved in any confrontation, there's a good chance that the first punch would be thrown by her.......If Trayvon wanted to run away from Zimmerman what are the chances that Zimmerman would have been able to run him down? If there was a confrontation, it was because Trayvon wanted it.
Trad Guy, do you really think walking up to stranger walking through your neighbor's yard at night and asking what they are doing is vigilantism? And that a violent attack is a proper response to that question?
Trad Guy, do you really think walking up to stranger walking through your neighbor's yard at night and asking what they are doing is vigilantism?
For whatever reason -- I'm assuming some sort of personal trauma similar to this case -- t-guy latched on to "ZIMMERMAN = RACIST VIGILANTE KILLER" on day one and has kept a death-grip on that belief ever since.
Want to know what he "really thinks"? He "really thinks" whatever thoughts are necessary for that belief to be true. :)
AReasonableMan said...
None of the witnesses to date knew who Zimmerman was.
Uh, really?
O’Mara asked Lauer if in her personal interactions with Zimmerman he had acted appropriately. Yes, she answered. Did he appear to be a hot head? No. A wannabe vigilante? No. Did he seem to be a well-intentioned neighbor trying to help his community? Yes.
Jenna Lauer knew who he was and couldn't recognize a photo of Zimmerman taken by the police the night of the shooting due to his injuries.
Everything you've posted here on this case is utter bullshit.
Everything.
A point maybe the lawyer hosting this forum could clear up.
The STATE entered false evidence into the trial- a hand written letter, purpotedly from teh witnerss. Who could not read it, and is incapable of writing it.
That by itself seems to be grounds for dismissal. Shouldn't it? Five minutes of listening to that girl talk, and I'd be questioning her ability to write. The prosecution failed to see that the evidence was false. That calls into question ALL their evidence.
I wish there was spell check on comments... I spell better then I type....
Throughout the human experience, the stronger tribe will eventually overwhelm the weaker people, slaughter the men, rape the women, claim them as their own, and place the children into bondage. It's always been this way.
I'm sorry Icepick, but your contribution to the betterment of the human race, is about over. You have nothing to offer. Too bad, because you seem like a nice enough fella, but that's the way of the world. Defend you and yours and you might survive. You don't seem to care about defending yourself, but only hope to offer a human to sacrifice to hold off your impending demise.
I can look at my own DNA and see that my British Isle heritage has been bred with people from far away lands.
Sorry, Harold, but Althouse doesn't do lawyerly advice. She's too emotional to handle the activity.
Matthew Sablan said...
I'm seeing that Zimmerman's parents aren't be allowed to attend the trial, but, aren't Martin's parents allowed to be there?
The prosecution has designated them as state witnesses and may be called upon to testify.
This of course keeps his very Hispanic appearing mother out of the jury's view...and I really doubt the state will actually call them...like to say what?
I'm anxious to see how the prosecution handles these photos:
Photo 1
Photo 2
The trial is to sift the testimony to see if the Z self serving fear of death from Martin story holds up.
So far it is MIA. You guys believe it from the media PR wars. But Z will need to convince the jury. He convinced the Local DA who did not want to go against new Stand Your Ground rulings with this case.
That left no forum to hear the case. Remember we were saying then the black teens should all be issued Glocks and ammo since the Judicial system had abandoned its job. A trial is back. All will now be good as we can get it without vigilante gangs.
traditionalguy said...
So far it is MIA. You guys believe it from the media PR wars. But Z will need to convince the jury.
Honest to God, for a lawyer, you don't seem to have a fucking clue. It's up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of Zimmerman. If you have a reasonable doubt as to the prosecutions charges, then you must acquit. WTF?
Aridog, earlier in this thread someone told us that Z's injuries weren't that bad...perhaps he should have waited for some really serious injuries (blindness? brain damage? missing teeth?) before he protected himself w/deadly force. I don't want to wish ill fortune on anyone, but if that person ever receives a beating like this I hope he remembers that 'it wasn't that bad'.
It's getting difficult to believe Trad Guy is really a lawyer...
Trust me, tradguy, that will be the instructions to the jury. For whatever reason, you don't seem to understand the process. I wonder if Althouse does, also.
AllenS said...
Trust me, tradguy, that will be the instructions to the jury. For whatever reason, you don't seem to understand the process. I wonder if Althouse does, also.
She's admitted that she's never been on a jury, but she may have helped try a case or two. She has watched a lot of TV though, some of it probably courtroom drama.
traditionalguy said...
The trial is to sift the testimony to see if the Z self serving fear of death from Martin story holds up.
So far it is MIA. You guys believe it from the media PR wars. But Z will need to convince the jury. He convinced the Local DA who did not want to go against new Stand Your Ground rulings with this case.
That left no forum to hear the case. Remember we were saying then the black teens should all be issued Glocks and ammo since the Judicial system had abandoned its job. A trial is back. All will now be good as we can get it without vigilante gangs.
================
1. No one was calling for armed packs of blacks.
2. Especially not the black community, which is already cursed with packs armed with illegal guns killing one another as well as predating on other races.
3. A neighborhood watch program is not a vigilante gang. You are clueless on what is and is not "vigilantism"...another sign you did not attend law school except perhaps to get paid to mop the floors,
Excuse my French, but Jesus H. Christ. How is it that a lawyer doesn't realize that the burden of proof rests solely with the prosecution?
Nontraditional Bitch is to being a lawyer as bitchtits mahal is to having a high paying job.
I should probably tell everyone why I'm so fucking lawyerly smart. I worked for West Publishing in St. Paul, MN. That's right, I printed the law books before the lawyers even read them. I understood the concept of case law and statutes before a lot of lawyers who read this blog even climbed out of diapers. Also, I can string a web through the press, start it up, get good color, have an even fold and a good burst or saddle stitch ready for the bindery. I can do it all.
The trial is to sift the testimony to see if the Z self serving fear of death from Martin story holds up. So far it is MIA.
An actual lawyer would know this, but the defense presents its case AFTER the prosecution is done presenting its case. :)
Right now, the relevant issue is that the prosecution's "rage-filled vigilante attacked Martin" story is also MIA.
AllenS. I think what tradguy is saying is that things do not work as they should ina trial and that it is possible that the defense attorneys have been too aggressive against the female witness and that that will turn the female jurors against the defense. They will stop listening in other words. That leaves Z to defend himself. As you yourself noted there are some stubborn and stupid characters sitting on juries who will ifnore the obvious instruction regarding shadows of doubt and cling to their judgements, jowever stupid, to the end. See the case of OJ Simpson, etc.
AllenS. I think what tradguy is saying is that things do not work as they should ina trial and that it is possible that the defense attorneys have been too aggressive against the female witness and that that will turn the female jurors against the defense. They will stop listening in other words. That leaves Z to defend himself. As you yourself noted there are some stubborn and stupid characters sitting on juries who will ifnore the obvious instruction regarding shadows of doubt and cling to their judgements, jowever stupid, to the end. See the case of OJ Simpson, etc.
It's getting difficult to believe Trad Guy is really a lawyer...]
There was never any reason to believe he was a lawyer. Or that Inga has a daughter in the military, or that LuckyOldSon was a successful small businessman, or... etc, etc.
Anonymity is nice, but one of the drawbacks is that you can't base your claims on real-world expertise.
I understand that, Michael, yet, at the end of the trial the jury will be presented the option of whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt as to Zimmerman's guilt or innocence to the charges against him.
Whether or not the prosecutions witnesses were telling the truth or not should mean something to the jurors, but never underestimate the stupidity of the American people. However, that's beside the point. If Zimmerman is found guilty, I can think of numerous reasons for an appeal to be granted.
I think what tradguy is saying is that things do not work as they should ina trial and that it is possible that the defense attorneys have been too aggressive against the female witness and that that will turn the female jurors against the defense.
In the real world, the nastiest judges of women are other women. Female solidarity exists at the Campus Women's Collective, in the mind of t-guy, and essentially nowhere else.
I find it more plausible that the white jurors will be turned off by hearing Zimmerman described as a "weird-ass cracker". His pseudo-girlfriend testifying that he talked like a Boyz N the Hood extra clashes with the "he was an innocent child" story the prosecution's trying to peddle. Hard to imagine an innocent child jumping somebody; easy to imagine a paranoid racist doing it.
Any lawyer want to step forward and dispute any of my statements?
I feel like I'm holding court. Beware, everyone, I am the Grand Poobah.
AllenS....you are a good man. Wait and see what the jury does. Everyone will accept the verdict.
Z can seal the deal for acquittal by testifying convincingly.
Juries have the power to feel convinced beyond a reasonable doubt or not anytime they feel like it. And homocide of young people need verdicts so the acquitted can be safe from doubt about them.
You're a fool to think that it's a good idea to put your client on the witness stand. Again, hard to believe you're a lawyer, and if you are, you're a shitty one.
traditionalguy said...
Z can seal the deal for acquittal by testifying convincingly.
Putting Zimmerman on the stand would be idiotic. See the photos I posted at 8:26 PM. What "testimony" could surpass the physical evidence?
Trad Guy, you still seem to think that it's the burden of the accused to prove his innocence. Does your experience tell you that juries think this way, in contradiction to the law?
poppa india...By Jove, you've got it. All purpose Juries do whatever they want to do.
AllenS is right too. West will be accused of malpractice if he were to allow Z to testify, and so Z will not testify.
That's Catch 22 again. The jury will convict Z because he would not get up and say that he did not attack Martin.
Lawyer's fees will triple. Z's food bills will be free. Jenteal will run for Sheriff of Seminole County on a reform ticket and win.
Everybody wins.
The jury will convict Z because he would not get up and say that he did not attack Martin.
One can never rule out juries doing something silly, of course. But since all the evidence indicates that Martin attacked Zimmerman, it is highly unlikely that twelve jurors will spontaneously decide that the reverse happened. :)
Put another way: it took a jury all of eleven hours to find Casey Anthony not guilty. Despite the prosecutor's brilliant opening speech, despite 24/7 news hatred directed at her, despite a parade of prosecution witnesses and not much of a defense.
Because the prosecution couldn't close the deal. They tried to spin circumstantial evidence into damning proof of guilt and the jury didn't buy it.
The prosecution in this case is badgering its OWN witnesses because THEIR stories don't support the prosecution's version of events. The physical evidence is either inconclusive or supports Zimmerman. The idea that Zimmerman is in serious danger of conviction is just plain silly. The only thing that would convict him is jury nullification, and that's unlikely on a mixed-race jury.
I watched a good chunk of Ms Jeantel's testimony. I formed an unfavorable opinion of her. But then I heard all the talking heads explain that she was authentic, that her documented lies were fabricated for noble purposes, and that her repeating of Trayvon's bad words just showed how honest she was. I don't know if the tv analysts were saying those things just for show but they seemed sincere in their belief in Jeantel's credibility and goodness. Most of them were women. If people can regard Jeantel sympathetically, it's not such a big leap from there to regard Zimmerman as guilty
William,
The "Jeantel is a simple but decent girl who lies for noble purposes" is exactly the line of attack the defense is using against her.
Her story has changed over time as she spent more time with the prosecution and with Martin's family. Her initial description of Zimmerman's words was innocuous; she didn't come up with the more aggressive, Zimmerman's-missing-with-Martin version until the prosecutor questioned her... at Martin's mom's house... with the mom sitting right there on the sofa, crying.
That's the angle. Not that she's a malicious liar, but that she couldn't bear to tell a grieving mother that her son started the fight.
Her testimony made it clear that she's not that bright and can't express herself well. That she has been manipulated by the prosecutor and motivated by empathy for Martin's mother is something the jury will, I suspect, not have a hard time believing.
Interesting day. Still waiting for the prosecution witness who will really help their case. Defense seems to be able to flip the state's witnesses at will. With the exception, maybe, of the critical Jeantel. However, she and her testimony have been fairly thoroughly discredited. She has repeatedly lied, her testimony was obviously coached, and she is apparently beyond being functionally illiterate. She can neither read nor write cursive, something that most normal children master by maybe the 3rd grade. I can see why she hasn't graduated from HS yet at 18 or 19, but wonder how she made it to her junior year.
One thing that has become esp. noticeable this last day or two is how much both Crump and the prosecution have strayed ethically. Jeantel was specifically told not to talk to anyone about the case last night, while she was still officially on the stand, and yet was obviously coached last night by either Crump or the prosecution, who were both in court yesterday hearing the judge instruct her thusly. For one thing, all of a sudden, this illiterate young woman was responding to cross-examination questions a lot more as you would instruct your own witnesses - don't volunteer anything, try to keep to yes and no answers, and ask for questions to be rephrased if not understood fully. She was doing this a bit Thurs. morning, but not Wed. afternoon nearly as much. And, yes, she appeared heavily medicated this morning. Also, turns out that the statement that was the basis for the 2nd Degree Murder indictment was taken with Jeantel sitting next to Martin's grieving mother at her side, his father in the house, and Crump in the room. And, apparently with several "takes" on the testimony, with the original complete transcript either never fully released to the defense, or done so in the last week or so. A lot of pressure there to provide certain specific testimony, which she obligingly did, esp. in view apparently of the feelings of Martin's mother sitting by her side at the time.
My view so far is that the prosecution just hasn't made much of a case for 2nd Degree Murder, and, in particular, the depraved mind element. There just isn't any evidence yet really of Zimmerman being a racist vigilante, nor really of being all that reckless (and depraved mind requires a lot beyond mere recklessness). Probably could get manslaughter, but that is where self-defense comes in, and the state really hasn't shown much of anything to disprove Zimmerman's story of self-defense, which the State needs to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt. We shall see.
Real court isn't like TV court. There is no reason for Zimmerman to take the stand; his explanation of what happened that night has not changed, and there's already his handwritten note to the police describing the events, why put him on the stand when the key bit of his testimony is already there?
Apparently, latest state witness confirms Martin on top, straddling and hitting, Zimmerman on bottom.
... Yeah. That's right. The prosecution just put a witness on the stand that AGAIN confirms Zimmerman's defense's interpretation of events.
The evidence is not substantial court reporters in miami
Post a Comment