The witness knew his name?
It's probably not irrelevant, but certainly not very credible. Her actions going forward are probably going to be more significant than anything else she could provide.
-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Family of Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch seeks arrest
- Thread starter Dram
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
The witness knew his name?
It's probably not irrelevant, but certainly not very credible. Her actions going forward are probably going to be more significant than anything else she could provide.
The witness told the police it was Trayvon screaming.
They corrected her and told her it was zimmerman, and with that information, they let zimmerman go. That information, is the witness testimony. That Zimmerman was screaming for help & had to defend himself.
No, they may have had the eye-witness testimony.
FACT: An eye-Witness testimony is usually favored over someone who did not see the actual event. The reason they may have let Zimmerman go so quick (not he primary reason) is because the eye-witness saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman was the one screaming.
Devolution
Member
The witness knew his name?
You don't need names to identify when you hear a child screaming. This thread is a clusterfuck of trolling.
You don't need names to identify when you hear a child screaming. This thread is a clusterfuck of trolling.
I'm asking a question. How is that trolling, Devolution?
Devolution
Member
I'm asking a question. How is that trolling, Devolution?
There were two people out that night they could have heard. Trayvon and Zimmerman. If someone identifies a child, I think that rules out Zimmerman.
No.
She said the teenage boy was crying, the police corrected her by saying it was Zimmerman. This information may have been based on what an eye-witness told him.
The police corrected her on WHO she heard crying, not WHAT she heard crying. Technically, that's not wrong because she did not see the actual event.
Even an eye witness to the scene is anecdotal, so why would a cop put one statement above the other? To the point where the cop will alter it.
Considering the scene was at night and it was raining.
It would be up to the lawyers and jury to decide how to use the statement and which statements to disregard, not for the cop to alter it.
Again, how exactly is it right for a cop to place 100% faith in one statement over anothers?
He only has the people's words to go by.
He should have taken the statements with utmost objectivity and not witness tampered.
There is no getting around that.
There were two people out that night they could have heard. Trayvon and Zimmerman. If someone identifies a child, I think that rules out Zimmerman.
That wasn't the question. The question was did the witness know Trayvon by name?
Her testimony isn't irrelevant because she didn't see the event KodMos.
Did I say that? I said an eye-witness testimony is favored over someone who did not see the actual event. I said from the beginning that her testimony is still valid, especially if the eye-witness proved to be untrustworthy.
What if the eye-witness goes on trail and cannot absolutely confirm who was crying for help? What if Travyon yelled for help right after Zimmerman when he saw the gun? What if the the eye-witness admitted the the tone of voice changed as he was trying to call the police.
The witness knew his name?
It's probably not irrelevant, but certainly not very credible.
Who are you to decide if its credible or not? Thats just your opinion. Lawyers cross examine witnesses, to determine if they will be credible.
Right now, the only fact that we have is that the Police corrected a testimony. Which isn't their job when getting evidence for a murder.
Let me know if you're having trouble understanding that.
Angelus Errare
Banned
No.
She said the teenage boy was crying, the police corrected her by saying it was Zimmerman. This information may have been based on what an eye-witness told him.
The police corrected her on WHO she heard crying, not WHAT she heard crying. Technically, that's not wrong because she did not see the actual event.
Do you read the shit you write? She said she heard Trayvon. The police correct her and say she heard Zimmerman. That is altering. Police under law are not suppose to correct witness statements at ALL for ANY REASON. This is what cross examination is for, the fact this dead simple concept escapes you is hilarious as fuck.
That wasn't the question. The question was did the witness know Trayvon by name?
I'm going to say no, and that the report used the name since they did know the name. It's not that complicated.
Mortrialus
Banned
You seem very hostile. Not sure why.
I didn't say anything about her "positively identifying Zimmerman". Not sure why you would even mention that after one of my posts.
Of course I'm going to seem hostile. I have to put up with people like you and KodMos shitting up the thread.
Seriously, I have no idea what you have been trying to say here. You're all over the place. We've been arguing about how the police investigation regarding the witness testimonies at the scene of the crime was critically flawed for over two pages now. You pop into this thread and basically say "Who cares? The witness testimony was worthless." First off, that is wrong. Even if that isn't evidence that guarantees a conviction, it can tell police about the trustworthiness of Zimmerman's testimony and help them know what to investigate next. Point in fact? They used her corrected testimony as an excuse to basically close the case and not arrest Zimmerman after the crime happened. Second ,your comment is actually pointless. When someone told you what we have actually been arguing about, you did say it was okay for police to correct witnesses.
No.
She said the teenage boy was crying, the police corrected her by saying it was Zimmerman.
That would still be wrong for police to do even if that were the case.
What actually happened was the police corrected her by saying she said Zimmerman was crying for help.
Did I say that? I said an eye-witness testimony is favored over someone who did not see the actual event. I said from the beginning that her testimony is still valid, especially if the eye-witness proved to be untrustworthy.
What if the eye-witness goes on trail and cannot absolutely confirm who was crying for help? What if Travyon yelled for help right after Zimmerman when he saw the gun? What if the the eye-witness admitted the the tone of voice changed as he was trying to call the police.
A credible witness is favored. None of them have been deemed credible yet.
The issue is that police aren't there to correct witness testimony.
Police don't correct witness statements.
The police in have corrected witness statements.
Who are you to decide if its credible or not? Thats just your opinion. Lawyers cross examine witnesses, to determine if they will be credible.
Right now, the only fact that we have is that the Police corrected a testimony. Which isn't their job when getting evidence for a murder.
Let me know if you're having trouble understanding that.
It's not up for me to decide. Personally, I think any good defense can get through that portion fairly easily. Again though, the information that witness is going to hold about contrasting statements is going to be pure gold for the prosecution. I think that is incredibly interesting.
Let me know if you're having any trouble not being a jerk.
Even an eye witness to the scene is anecdotal, so why would a cop put one statement above the other? To the point where the cop will alter it.
Considering the scene was at night and it was raining.
It would be up to the lawyers and jury to decide how to use the statement and which statements to disregard, not for the cop to alter it.
Again, how exactly is it right for a cop to place 100% faith in one statement over anothers?
He only has the people's words to go by.
He should have taken the statements with utmost objectivity and not witness tampered.
There is no getting around that.
I said that there's nothing wrong with a police correcting a Witness, but that doesn't mean I think they should have dismissed all the testimony from other witnesses.
People read my post and quickly jump to conclusions, that just shows me how ignorant people are.
Of course I'm going to seem hostile. I have to put up with people like you and KodMos shitting up the thread.
That is kind of silly. I'm participating in the thread, I'm not actively trying to shit it up. Seems like all of you are taking potshots at me, at worst I'm responding to them.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
I said that there's nothing wrong with a police correcting a Witness, but that doesn't mean I think they should have dismissed all the testimony from other witnesses.
People read my post and quickly jump to conclusions, that just shows me how ignorant people are.
wute?
soundscream
Member
So are we still executing Zimmerman now that we have a witness that saw him being attacked?
This thread......it will give you cancer.
echoshifting
Banned
That is kind of silly. I'm participating in the thread, I'm not actively trying to shit it up. Seems like all of you are taking potshots at me, at worst I'm responding to them.
No offense but this has been a very long thread with more than its share of devil's advocates, making the same arguments and poking at the same minutiae. Hence the hostility.
No offense but this has been a very long thread with more than its share of devil's advocates, making the same arguments and poking at the same minutiae. Hence the hostility.
I've been viewing this thread since the beginning. I'm not really playing devil's advocate, I'm just not reverting to apeshit posts over every injustice. The mere fact we are having this conversation is absurd. It shouldn't haven't even gotten to this point.
Angelus Errare
Banned
So are we still executing Zimmerman now that we have a witness that saw him being attacked?
Depends, are we going to let him go based on the fact police told him not to pursue the kid but he did anyway, and the fact his story doesn't match up with another witness who the cops didn't bother to question or write up a report on? Or how they never took in account Trayvon's 911 call?
It's not as cut and dry as you're trying to make it out to be.
So are we still executing Zimmerman now that we have a witness that saw him being attacked?
On Tuesdays AC360, CNNs Anderson Cooper spoke with two witnesses, Mary Cutcher and her roommate Selma Mora Lamilla, who were at the scene of the gated community, The Retreat at Twin Lakes in Sanford, Florida, the night Trayvon Martin was shot to death by George Zimmerman.
"So you saw Mr. Zimmerman on top of Trayvon Martin? Cooper questioned.
Trayvon, exactly, Lamilla said."
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/anderson-cooper-interviews-witnesses-to-trayvon-martin-shooting/
And they aren't anonymous.
Devolution
Member
Depends, are we going to let him go based on the fact police told him not to pursue the kid, and the fact his story doesn't match up with another witness who the cops didn't bother to question or write up a report on?
Don't even entertain him. Just sigh.
I said that there's nothing wrong with a police correcting a Witness, but that doesn't mean I think they should have dismissed all the testimony from other witnesses.
People read my post and quickly jump to conclusions, that just shows me how ignorant people are.
Well now, that is some humility... how's the weather up there your high & mighty eminence?
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/anderson-cooper-interviews-witnesses-to-trayvon-martin-shooting/
And they aren't anonymous.
The police should have corrected them.
http://news.yahoo.com/attorneys-trayvon-martin-case-arguments-221119074.html"Is George a racist? The answer is no, absolutely not. He's not a racist," attorney Craig Sonner said about his client. "The incident that transpired is not racially motivated or a hate crime in any way. It was self-defense."
Sonner said he's spoken with several of Zimmerman's friends, including some who are African-American.
"They only have good things to say about him," Sonner said.
They're reluctant to come forward, though, because they fear that the backlash over the investigation will make them and their families targets, too, Sonner said.
He has black friends guys.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
I've been viewing this thread since the beginning. I'm not really playing devil's advocate, I'm just not reverting to apeshit posts over every injustice. The mere fact we are having this conversation is absurd. It shouldn't haven't even gotten to this point.
I think there's just too much anger without the proper focus. There are two things that happened here and people are treating them like they are the same thing.
The Watch Guy - He killed a kid in cold blood. He followed the person for no reason other than his perceived bias. It's terrible. It seems pretty open and shut, but I really do think people need to step back and let justice run it's course.
And that's where the real problem lies.
The Police - In my view this is where most the anger needs to be directed. Not in any way to let the watch guy off, but the bigger issue here is that the cops failed to do a proper investigation. The watch guy has nothing to do with this part of this. He is involved, but he very likely had nothing to do with the police running a pathetic, and nearly non-existent investigation to the incident. The cops didn't care that an unarmed kid who lived in the area was just shot by a guy who disregarded 911 operators call not to follow the guy. Their incompetence could very well lead to this kid not getting any justice in his senseless death.
Do you read the shit you write? She said she heard Trayvon. The police correct her and say she heard Zimmerman. That is altering. Police under law are not suppose to correct witness statements at ALL for ANY REASON. This is what cross examination is for, the fact this dead simple concept escapes you is hilarious as fuck.
Wow... you guys can't be serious.
The police corrected her on who she heard not, NOT WHAT she heard. That's a big difference.
Do you know the difference between WHO and WHAT?
Maybe you should go look it up.
The police are not altering her witness testimony, because her testimony did not change.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Wow... you guys can't be serious.
The police corrected her on who she heard not, NOT WHAT she heard. That's a big difference.
Do you know the difference between WHO and WHAT?
Maybe you should go look it up.
The police are not altering her witness testimony, because her testimony did not change.
The police didn't know who she heard, unless they themselves were there. and her testimony was changed.
wut.?
Wow... you guys can't be serious.
The police corrected her on who she heard not, NOT WHAT she heard. That's a big difference.
Do you know the difference between WHO and WHAT?
Maybe you should go look it up.
The police are not altering her witness testimony, because her testimony did not change.
Did it ever cross your mind that maybe everyone else here isn't wrong?
http://news.yahoo.com/attorneys-trayvon-martin-case-arguments-221119074.html
He has black friends guys.
Holy shit.
HOLY SHIT.
They actually, in real life, to the press, played the "I can't be racist because I have black friends" card.
God damn.
At this point, it's actually becoming comical. Wow.
I think there's just too much anger without the proper focus. There are two things that happened here and people are treating them like they are the same thing.
The Watch Guy - He killed a kid in cold blood. He followed the person for no reason other than his perceived bias. It's terrible. It seems pretty open and shut, but I really do think people need to step back and let justice run it's course.
And that's where the real problem lies.
The Police - In my view this is where most the anger needs to be directed. Not in any way to let the watch guy off, but the bigger issue here is that the cops failed to do a proper investigation. The watch guy has nothing to do with this part of this. He is involved, but he very likely had nothing to do with the police running a pathetic, and nearly non-existent investigation to the incident. The cops didn't care that an unarmed kid who lived in the area was just shot by a guy who disregarded 911 operators call not to follow the guy. Their incompetence could very well lead to this kid not getting any justice in his senseless death.
That's pretty much my mindset at the moment. The lousy thing is, any proceedings from this point on from Martin's family are going to have to be strongly based around the police in comparison to Zimmerman. I'm not even sure how that is going to be possible with the apparent egos in that state.
The police didn't know who she heard, unless they themselves were there. and her testimony was changed.
wut.?
Show me proof that the police altered her statement after they wrote down her testimony.
I said that there's nothing wrong with a police correcting a Witness, but that doesn't mean I think they should have dismissed all the testimony from other witnesses.
People read my post and quickly jump to conclusions, that just shows me how ignorant people are.
The only problem with a police officer correcting a witness, is that they are dismissing testimony from other witnesses.
Show me proof that the police altered her statement after they wrote down her testimony.
The proof is the police correcting her, and letting Zimmerman go based on this testimony.
Holy shit.
HOLY SHIT.
They actually, in real life, to the press, played the "I can't be racist because I have black friends" card.
God damn.
At this point, it's actually becoming comical. Wow.
Sugar Ray Leonard can eat here on the house!
Did it ever cross your mind that maybe everyone else here isn't wrong?
I got pretty vague statements after exposing a few ignorant people on here already.. So I where some other people already stand.
Show me proof that the police altered her statement after they wrote down her testimony.
That's the position you're taking now? =_=
I got pretty vague statements after exposing a few ignorant people on here already.. So I where some other people already stand.
Exposing what?
Angelus Errare
Banned
Wow... you guys can't be serious.
The police corrected her on who she heard not, NOT WHAT she heard. That's a big difference.
Do you know the difference between WHO and WHAT?
Maybe you should go look it up.
The police are not altering her witness testimony, because her testimony did not change.
You are by far THE most retarded person to ever have free fucking will. Read the bold and explain to me how the police telling her it was Zimmerman and not Trayvon does NOT change her statement. Like you can't be serious, no one is this dense. It's impossible, I've met crackheads with more common sense than this. What is this shit. The police were not there, so they can't tell her ANYTHING about what happened. They can't correct a witness due to statements given out by other witnesses, they're both technically illegal.
English 101 for you, 5 parts to a eye witness testimony
WHO did the crime
WHAT happened
WHEN did it happen
WHERE where did it happen
WHY (if it applies)
HOW* did it happen
If you change ANY of those you have just changed the testimony. If you can't grasp this I pray you go to college for something easy like Art History.
I got pretty vague statements after exposing a few ignorant people on here already.. So I where some other people already stand.
You haven't exposed anyone for being ignorant. You just keep saying you are when the people leave the thread.
And I hate to throw the term around, but you're pretty high on the list if you honest to god claim its ok for police to correct statements, as long as it doesn't dismiss others. When inherently correcting a statement dismisses other statements.
Its typical, hes trying to do word games to not have to fully admit anything. Its net arguing 101.
The only problem with a police officer correcting a witness, is that they are dismissing testimony from other witnesses.
The proof is the police correcting her, and letting Zimmerman go based on this testimony.
Sorry that's not proof. Proof would be that they have an altered written statement in their inventory.
Exposing what?
That his ignorance comes from his years spent of lawn chair debating claiming others ignorance...
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Show me proof that the police altered her statement after they wrote down her testimony.
They altered it before they wrote it down... per the actual witness.
wut?
Mortrialus
Banned
Sorry that's not proof. Proof would be that they have an altered written statement in their inventory.
That would be impossible because according to her they never wrote down her actual testimony in the first place.
Professor Beef
Banned
Banned, huh?
Angelus Errare
Banned
Thank god!
slidewinder
Banned
Heh. I don't think he even believed his own shit any more, either.
soundahfekz
Member
Thank goodness. What a headache that guy has been.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.