And this is your only response after I exposed your ignorance?
He isn't the only one in the thread addressing you. You will look like less of a troll if you actually participate in the discussion that you started.
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.
Seriously how is this up for debate? Cops are not supposed to influence witnesses's statements.
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.
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.
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.
I think I get your argument (That the witness could not be sure of what they thought they heard), but it is not the job of a person taking a statement to 'correct' it. The statement is the persons statement, not the corrected, sanitised, fact checked position of the person after careful consideration. Well, it could be that, but it doesn't have to be.
and oh yeah,
You don't correct a witnesses statement, there is never a reason to.
(f5 f5 f5...)