soundahfekz
Member
This might literally be the dumbest shit I've read this year.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Family of Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch seeks arrest
- Thread starter Dram
- Start date
- Status
This might literally be the dumbest shit I've read this year.
Mortrialus
Banned
We've shown time and time against that police are not supposed to allow witnesses to influence other witness testimonies and when police told witnesses what they believed happened they corrupted the evidence of the witness testimonies. You are not supposed to tell witnesses what you think happened. You are not supposed to tell witnesses what other witnesses think happened. You are not supposed to allow other witnesses to discuss what they think happened. Not until you collect all of the witness testimonies and work to keep them independent from each other. That is a fact that you refuse to accept and at this point you deserve outright mockery for it, although I expect you probably deserve a ban for trolling more.
KodMos is KHarvey jr?
Considering his initial post was that he thought zimmerman was guilty and had all the evidence stacked against him, I have to agree.
Considering his initial post was that he thought zimmerman was guilty and had all the evidence stacked against him, I have to agree.
Mortrialus
Banned
With that name, I wonder if it's an alt of Kosmos.
It's not dumb, you just lack common sense.
I'll break this down in simple answers (btw anyone can answer).
How can a non-eyewitness identify Trayvon's Martin's voice if they did not hear or see the actual event?
Mortrialus
Banned
Because we dealing with witnesses who overheard the event.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
soundahfekz
Member
How can a police officer correct a witness on what he or she heard? You don't insert your fucking opinion into witness testimony regardless of your belief, you document EVERYTHING and let the court and jury settle the matter.
You're clearly the one lacking common sense if you find nothing wrong with how evidence and witness accounts were collected and modified.
I can't believe how many times I have to repeat my self.
Can you guys read
How can they identify his voice if they did not see him cry?
Remember, the Witnesses have never heard his voice, so how can they identify that it was Trayvon martin?
Devolution
Member
I don't know if I hear a minor crying vs a grown man, k.
Zoe
Member
Er... from the second link:
As for asking the neighbors, they wouldn't have had a photo of him that they could present to anyone the night of the incident. They would be creating hysteria amongst anyone who would think he might be their son.
And again, neither he nor his father were actually residents of the community, so it's possible the neighbors in the vicinity didn't even know the family.
THINK.
It's not about what she heard, it's WHO she heard. Did she see WHO cried for help? NO.
lol.. Seriously. Can you understand?
Disqualified because the first officer on the scene saw zimmerman as the suspect:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/anonymous...rge-zimmerman/
So let me get this straight. Your advice for a kid that dies in a neighborhood and they don't have ID with them is simply leave them in a morgue and hope the parents reach out to you after they notice their son/daughter missing for a few days? I will say, at least you're not denying your victim blaming, which is something that can't be said for previous posters in this thread.
No, it is dumb, and you lack any sort of consistency in your argument. How about this.
How can a policeman correct a witness on what he heard, if the policeman did not hear or see the actual event and does not know whether the eyewitness account can be trusted?
Just because it sounded like a young man's voice, does that mean it was Trayvon Martin's? No.
Devolution
Member
Oh okay because there was some phantom child out on the street that night. Gotcha.
Not even the eyewitness, the fucking dude who pulled the trigger, because he's real objective right.
Grown man cannot have a high pitched voice, even when under distress.. Gotcha.
If anyone isn't understanding it is you. YOU DO NOT CORRECT WITNESSES EVER. DOESN'T MATTER IF SHE DOESN'T KNOW HOW ZIMMERMAN SOUNDS LIKE. SHE HEARD WHAT SHE HEARD AND IT IS THE POLICE'S JOB TO COME TO THE TRUTH AND NOT FIX PEOPLE'S TESTIMONY IN ORDER TO FIT THE LITTLE NARRATIVE THEY WOULD RATHER HAVE.
VistraNorrez
Member
So? The witness still has to say something, and if they choose to say they think it was Martin they can say it. The officer should not correct them. It's not up to the officers at the scene of the crime to dissect witness testimony they are there for statements. Once the trial comes it's up to the Prosecutors and Defense to dissect the evidence and make an argument for or against it.
soundahfekz
Member
You can't make the jump to questioning who she heard without stopping at the police manipulation. There are contrasting witness accounts in cases all the time. Proper procedure is to document them and submit them where applicable.
If you refuse to acknowledge the manipulation, logically you CAN'T move any further.
It's amazing how dense you are dude.
Zoe
Member
And at what point did that change? You can't just start rifling through the scene of the crime before everyone has done their part. Or else you'll run into the issue that the investigator mentioned with bad searches.
Actually, yes, that is typically how it works if they haven't had the time to gain the information through legal channels.
As for the last part, I have simply decided not to dignify such accusations with a response. That's all I'll say.
I lack consistency? LOL.
KodMoS said:
How can the police correct a Witness? Because they interviewed the person who SAW the event.
I was consistent..
Mods, would it be possible to implement some sort of banning at the thread level? I mean, the kid's mom said it was his voice and even other witnesses corroborated the sound of a child screaming for help. I know I this was explicitly stated a few days ago when you brought this same thing up.
Mortrialus
Banned
Just a few posts ago you said that only one witness heard and/or saw the event, despite the entire point of the conversation revolving around witnesses who overheard the event.
But you don't understand, there was someone who says they saw the fight and they said it was Zimmerman so everyone else is clearly wrong and Zimmerman should be given a big apology by everyone for the hard time he has been put through. It is great that the police were able to correct those ignorant witnesses.
That is manipulation.
Police don't correct witness testimony. Even if a witness said they saw batman doing it, that is the statement.
Devolution
Member
Well wasn't it Zimmerman who lied about the original altercation and police interviewed witnesses based on his statements at the scene?
No, you're the one that's dense. You keep implying that she heard Trayvon crying, when she cannot identify who actually cried.
I know what the proper procedure is, I'm only debating why they may have corrected the witnesses. Your attention to detail is terrible. The fact of the matter is, she was assuming it was Trayvon because it sounded like a young man's voice, but that doesn't mean it was Trayvon.
Devolution
Member
You don't correct witnesses statements based on what the fuck you were told by other witnesses or the damn suspect. Why are you continuing. I even quoted a damn interview guideline that you conveniently acted like didn't apply to this situation. Oh wait a woman doesn't know a kid crying and a mother certainly can identify her child. What am I thinking.
Mortrialus
Banned
Obviously fucking not.
Given the PD's gross incompetence of this case and similar cases before it, I don't think it's hard to put two and two together. But whatever, it's pretty clear that you just like going around in circles. I'm gonna go play some UMvC3
Well considering you did say that Trayvon probably would probably be alive if he went out in "proper" attire, I'm going to assume that my assumption is correct.
how bout the part where you said this
Obviously the eyewitness isn't infallible, but you're saying it's ok to 'correct' other witnesses with your eyewitness however wrong or right he or she may be instead of getting every ones take on the situation and corroborating the information at hand. You don't correct a witness, period. You don't as a police officer take someones testimony and then proceed to tell them what they did or didn't hear.
VistraNorrez
Member
I don't even know what you are arguing anymore.
There is a reason they have witnesses come to trial for examination, because they are trying to find consistency or inconsistency. It doesn't matter what someone saw, they can still be wrong. Eye witness account is not 100% reliable.
Devolution
Member
Seriously how is this up for debate? Cops are not supposed to influence witnesses's statements.
Happypwnstar
Banned
I say a 2 weeks in the ghetto as punishment drop him off in LA and everyone turn there back, what happens happens.
Sure they are. Just like how they can move evidence at a crime scene to fit whatever theory they want. /sarcasm
I would love to see Kodmos as a cop. Crime is committed, eye witness says it was a 7 foot black man wearing a Bulls hoodie, jeans, and Jordan shoes. While looking for other witnesses he sees a 7 foot white man with a Bulls hoodie, jeans and Jordan shoes. Looks at him and asks him if he is having a pleasant day because the eye witness said it was a black man.
soundahfekz
Member
LOL somebody get this dude out of here, he's hurting himself.
There IS no "why". You don't correct witnesses. EVER
BoobPhysics101
Banned
I don't think you know what you are talking about. An eyewitness account is subjective. They could say that they believe Zimmerman transformed into a miniature Godzilla, and that is their eyewitness testimony. They say what they BELIEVE they see/hear, and that is why eyewitness testimony is faulty.
However, there is no CORRECTING witnesses. A police officer simply cannot alter or attempt to influence eyewitness testimony. Nobody can. An officer while taking a statement may attempt to clarify, e.g. "Wait, sir, you said Godzilla, correct? Or did you mean Mothra?" in order to make sure they record the statement correctly.
If she said she heard Trayvon crying, that is her statement. The court proceedings will figure out whether she can truly identify who was crying. Until then, anything else is conjecture.
Devolution
Member
You know what maybe we're the ones in the wrong, here me out. "No no no see the aggressor was the black fellow in this instance" might be in the protocol for southern cops.
And this is your only response after I exposed your ignorance?
No, its a fact that he doesn't know what he is talking about.
The part when he tried to clarify why police edit witness testimony gave it away.
Devolution
Member
You did what?
soundahfekz
Member
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked