In which Stoid (The Prosecutor) Cross-examines Bricker (George Zimmerman)

[SecretaryofEvil]

Originally Posted by Living Well Is Best Revenge

I object to this thread on grounds of douchebaggery on all fronts.

Sustained

[Alan Smithee]

Is the prosecution resting?

[Fiddle Peghead]

Originally Posted by TriPolar

Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!

Oh, wait, it didn't start yet. I'll be back later.

I had no idea Nancy Grace posted on this message board!

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by Alan Smithee

Is the prosecution resting?

Yes, but only literally.... I've been asleep for a couple of days. After being awake for a couple of days. Back soon with more...

[brazil84]

I wonder if Stoid will eventually rest her mock-case. Or if she will just stop posting and let the thread sink into oblivion.

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by brazil84

I wonder if Stoid will eventually rest her mock-case.

God of course I will... I couldn't keep asking questions until the end of time!

Restart tomorrow...

[DrumBum]

It has taken a bit of time to get through this thread but I would like to commend Stoid and Bricker on their efforts thus far. It has been a very enlightening thread.

[Bambro]

Really? No, really? What, in particular, have you found enlightening with regards to this thread?

[DrumBum]

Originally Posted by Bambro

Really? No, really? What, in particular, have you found enlightening with regards to this thread?

Some of the questions posed by Stoid and the legal explanations by Bricker. Since I don't get much of the news coverage of this over here I can't validate either of the questions they pose but it is still entertaining.

[Stoid]

So this is your account of what happened next, Mr. Zimmerman:

Originally Posted by Bricker

He then punches me, right in the nose, and thatshoved me backwards. As I fell I sort of grabbed at his head and felt something fall away from his ear. I think I hurt his ear because he yelled "Fucker!" at me and kicked at my ribs. I tried to roll away from the kick and he followed me. On the second or third kick I caught his leg and swept him down, thinking I could get him down, and I did. I started running

Why did you start running, Mr. Zimmerman? You had knocked him down, you knew the police were coming, you knew you had a gun, and you have worked as a private security guard, which suggests that you have some experience with physical altercations and some confidence in your ability to deal with them.

You had the advantage, there were any number of things you could have done at that point, including the simplest of all, which would be to speak to him.

You've made it very clear that your intention was to prevent this kid from getting away, yet we are to believe that having managed to knock him down after he has, according to you, actually assaulted you, your next idea is to run?

Please explain.

[Terr]

nm.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Stoid

Why did you start running, Mr. Zimmerman? You had knocked him down, you knew the police were coming, you knew you had a gun, and you have worked as a private security guard, which suggests that you have some experience with physical altercations and some confidence in your ability to deal with them.

You had the advantage, there were any number of things you could have done at that point, including the simplest of all, which would be to speak to him.

You've made it very clear that your intention was to prevent this kid from getting away, yet we are to believe that having managed to knock him down after he has, according to you, actually assaulted you, your next idea is to run?

Please explain.

I started running because I never meant to get into a fight with him. I just wanted to make sure he was there when the police got there, but not by violence. I got him down by catching his leg as he was kicking me. Those weren't love taps; they were hard kicks and that punch was hard too. He was way taller than I am and I didn't see anything good coming out of trying to talk to him, at least until I got out of range of his fists and feet.

[Alan Smithee]

Originally Posted by Stoid

So this is your account of what happened next, Mr. Zimmerman:



Why did you start running, Mr. Zimmerman? You had knocked him down, you knew the police were coming, you knew you had a gun, and you have worked as a private security guard, which suggests that you have some experience with physical altercations and some confidence in your ability to deal with them.

You had the advantage, there were any number of things you could have done at that point, including the simplest of all, which would be to speak to him.

You've made it very clear that your intention was to prevent this kid from getting away, yet we are to believe that having managed to knock him down after he has, according to you, actually assaulted you, your next idea is to run?

Please explain.

It's been pointed out to you already, but here especially, you're just giving Bricker/Zimmerman a chance to look more sympathetic. As a jury member, I hadn't thought about the fact that Zimmerman claims he tried to run away, but now that you've brought it up, it weakens your case by demonstrating that Zimmerman did try to de-escalate confrontation. The confusion over the Stand Your Ground law has made some people conflate the self-defense argument (and the fact that SYG arguably makes a suspect immune from arrest if the police reasonably believe he was acting in self-defense) with the issue of duty to retreat, which SYG did away with. You're emphasizing the fact that Bricker/Zimmerman is claiming he did try to retreat when it became apparent that he was in a potentially lethal situation.

That probably doesn't matter from a purely legal standpoint (since as noted, there was no duty to retreat) but it certainly makes the defendant seem more sympathetic and morally justified. Frankly, I think Bricker went easy on you (or decided to let you dig your own hole) by not playing this up himself in response to this question.

ETA: If your position is that it's simply unbelievable that Zimmerman would try to retreat at this point--so unbelievable as to be seen as false beyond a reasonable doubt, in fact!--well, good luck with that, Counselor.

[Stoid]

So then...

Originally Posted by Bricker

I started running, I couldn't tell exactly where, and I didn't get very far before I got hit by a running field tackle like they teach football players how to do. I ended up on my back with Treyvon on top of me.

You ended up on your back when being hit from behind by a running field tackle? And with Trayvon on top? How did you simply "end up" like that, when pretty much everyone else that gets tackled from behind while running away ends up face down?

[Bob Ducca]

Originally Posted by Stoid

So then...


You ended up on your back when being hit from behind by a running field tackle? And with Trayvon on top? How did you simply "end up" like that, when pretty much everyone else that gets tackled from behind while running away ends up face down?

Again, as being pointed out up-thread - you're making this too easy for Bricker.

He just has to say "I heard footsteps coming up fast behind me and just as I turned towards the sound of my attacker, he hit me full-force knocking me to my back."

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by Stoid

How did you simply "end up" like that, when pretty much everyone else that gets tackled from behind while running away ends up face down?

Have you ever been tackled? Stuff happens all the time, you twist and turn towards the blow if you hear someone coming, or your legs get twisted and that's the way you fall. These questions are really poorly designed to make any sort of coherent point, and all you are doing is making him seem reasonable.

[Bricker]

I heard footsteps coming up fast behind me and just as I turned towards the sound of my attacker, he hit me full-force knocking me to my back.

I guess you don't watch a lot of football, ma'am. People get tackled from behind and end up on their backs with some frequency.

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by Bricker

He was straddling me, and I was trying to shove him off, but I couldn't. He hit my head into something really hard,

How? Please describe exactly how he did that, how many hands and arms he used to do that, and where your hands and arms were at the time.

[Larry Borgia]

Originally Posted by Stoid

How? Please describe exactly how he did that, how many hands and arms he used to do that

I'm guessing it's some number X, where 0<X<3

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Stoid

How? Please describe exactly how he did that, how many hands and arms he used to do that, and where your hands and arms were at the time.

I don't exactly know. Everything was happening so quickly. I think he just had one hand on my forehead, with the heel of his palm shoving forward so that my head slammed back into what I think was the sidewalk. I think both my hands were in front of me trying to push him away but he had a lt more reach than I did, because he was so much taller.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I've been teaching some of my kids about "solved games," games where if you go first, you can guarantee victory. I've given them a game with a complex solution (Nim) and asked them to look for winning positions, positions from which they can't possibly lose.

Over and over I have kids come up to me claiming a position is winning, but it's not, so I calmly play against them and beat them. They look so puzzled, and sometimes they'll say, "Yeah, but if you did THIS instead, then I'd win." I have to explain to them that it's only a winning position if you win despite what your opponent does, not if your opponent plays into your hands.

Not sure what reminded me of this story.

[TokyoBayer]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

They look so puzzled, and sometimes they'll say, "Yeah, but if you did THIS instead, then I'd win." I have to explain to them that it's only a winning position if you win despite what your opponent does, not if your opponent plays into your hands.

This is what I like to call "red teaming," which is to have someone pretend to be your opponent go through and poke holes in your defenses. It can be really easy to get caught up yourself in your strengths.

[TokyoBayer]

Originally Posted by BottledBlondJeanie

Can't...help...self. Think she's probably going to attribute some expert-ish oinions from you as security personnel i.e., how you're trained to handle certain situations. I would assume a ruling on a motion in limine allowing certain questions, but not on an expert basis unless defense opens the door, but also a limiting instruction.

Good call.

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I don't exactly know. Everything was happening so quickly. I think he just had one hand on my forehead, with the heel of his palm shoving forward so that my head slammed back into what I think was the sidewalk. I think both my hands were in front of me trying to push him away but he had a lt more reach than I did, because he was so much taller.

So all you did was give a few ineffectual pushes with your hopelessly short arms and weak arms? You never tried to punch, grab, scratch, slap, or otherwise fight back or attempt to gain control or stop him? It was just try to push, fail, then " I have no choice but to blow a hole in his chest"?

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Stoid

So all you did was give a few ineffectual pushes with your hopelessly short arms and weak arms? You never tried to punch, grab, scratch, slap, or otherwise fight back or attempt to gain control or stop him? It was just try to push, fail, then " I have no choice but to blow a hole in his chest"?

You're starting to sound ridiculous now.

You should at least stay within the spirit of your own thread, and make a good faith effort to ascertain the facts, rather than pursue this snide, leading line of questioning.

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by Stoid

So all you did was give a few ineffectual pushes with your hopelessly short arms and weak arms? You never tried to punch, grab, scratch, slap, or otherwise fight back or attempt to gain control or stop him? It was just try to push, fail, then " I have no choice but to blow a hole in his chest"?

Weird. You (the prosecutor) just said that Zimmerman had hopelessly short and weak arms. Why would you make him look like a weak person who was at the mercy of someone more powerful than him? Not only that, but you've conceded that Zimmerman was under attack! You're trying to prosecute this guy not bolster his defense.

[BottledBlondJeanie]

Originally Posted by mhendo

You're starting to sound ridiculous now.

You should at least stay within the spirit of your own thread, and make a good faith effort to ascertain the facts, rather than pursue this snide, leading line of questioning.

Leading the witness is perfectly acceptable as he is a hostile witness on cross. Frankly, most of the line of questioning should force Zimmerman/Bricker to only answer "yes" or "no." All of this compound, argumentative questioning/testifying would never be allowed.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by BottledBlondJeanie

Leading the witness is perfectly acceptable as he is a hostile witness on cross.

I agree, but I think Stoid's question was objectionable as overly argumentative.

[Bob Ducca]

So is the Shyamalan twist here going to be that Stoid believed Zimmerman's story all along? She's doing all his work for him.

[Living Well Is Best Revenge]

Originally Posted by Bob Ducca

So is the Shyamalan twist here going to be that Stoid believed Zimmerman's story all along? She's doing all his work for him.

LOL.

[enomaj]

Originally Posted by Bob Ducca

So is the Shyamalan twist here going to be that Stoid believed Zimmerman's story all along? She's doing all his work for him.

I see Black people.

[BottledBlondJeanie]

Originally Posted by brazil84

I agree, but I think Stoid's question was objectionable as overly argumentative.

Agreed. That's why I followed it with "All of this compound, argumentative questioning/testifying would never be allowed."

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by BottledBlondJeanie

Leading the witness is perfectly acceptable as he is a hostile witness on cross. Frankly, most of the line of questioning should force Zimmerman/Bricker to only answer "yes" or "no." All of this compound, argumentative questioning/testifying would never be allowed.

Then the judge would have to stop it sua sponte, because while I certainly would object if I thought it was hurting my guy, I think it's making him look even more sympathetic, so as the defense counsel, I'm certainly not going to step in and stop it.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Stoid

So all you did was give a few ineffectual pushes with your hopelessly short arms and weak arms? You never tried to punch, grab, scratch, slap, or otherwise fight back or attempt to gain control or stop him? It was just try to push, fail, then " I have no choice but to blow a hole in his chest"?

I didn't say weak, just that he had a longer reach than I did. And yes, of course I tried to push him off and punch him, but lying on the ground it wasn't easy for me to punch with any force. I can't bench press 150 pounds at the gym. I couldn't lift a 150 pound guy off me. And it's not like he was just sitting there quietly letting me push; he was fighting back hitting me. He was really mad, really angry.

[BottledBlondJeanie]

True Bricker, just because a question is improper/objectionable does not mean it's always a good idea to object. I'd be sitting at table trying to suppress my smile.

[furt]

Originally Posted by Bob Ducca

So is the Shyamalan twist here going to be that Stoid believed Zimmerman's story all along? She's doing all his work for him.

Believed him? The whole thing was a set-up from the jump, and they're gonna split the proceeds from the book and movie rights and move to Brazil together.

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I I couldn't lift a 150 pound guy off me. .

Except you just told us that you could: that's exactly what you did to get to your gun to kill him.

[hajario]

Originally Posted by Stoid

Except you just told us that you could: that's exactly what you did to get to your gun to kill him.

Cite?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Stoid

Except you just told us that you could: that's exactly what you did to get to your gun to kill him.

No, ma'am. I wasn't able to get him off me. I was able to get him to move enough that I could get my gun out of its holster. In the gym, I can move the 150 pound setting on the bench press, but I can't lift the bar completely. Same thing here.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by BottledBlondJeanie

Leading the witness is perfectly acceptable as he is a hostile witness on cross. Frankly, most of the line of questioning should force Zimmerman/Bricker to only answer "yes" or "no." All of this compound, argumentative questioning/testifying would never be allowed.

Right. I shouldn't have said leading. It was more the obviously sarcastic and derisive language that i was talking about. As Bricker says, though, it's mainly serving to make the witness look more sympathetic.

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I got to my feet and went over to look at him. I had a little mini flashlight and I shined it on him. His eyes were open but he wasn't breathing. It seemed wrong that his eyes were open, so I reached down and closed them, just like they do on TV.

How were you able to do this when Treyvon was lying face down?

Why were you holding him down with both hands on his back, as the witnesses have told us?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Stoid

How were you able to do this when Treyvon was lying face down?

"Face down" doesn't literally mean that a person's face is pressed into the ground. Treyvon's head was turned to the side, so that one ear was on the ground and his face was pointed to the side.

Why were you holding him down with both hands on his back, as the witnesses have told us?

That never happened. I leaned over him and I reached out to close his eyes. That's all.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

One weird effect of this is that I have to keep reminding myself that this isn't the real thing, that despite this mock trial, there's a very good chance that Zimmerman is actually guilty.

[hajario]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

One weird effect of this is that I have to keep reminding myself that this isn't the real thing, that despite this mock trial, there's a very good chance that Zimmerman is actually guilty.

Of what?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by hajario

Of what?

Shoplifting.

[hajario]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Shoplifting.

Haha.

I was being serious. Assault? Manslaughter? First degree Murder?

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by hajario

Haha.

I was being serious. Assault? Manslaughter? First degree Murder?

Nothing that serious. Shooting an unarmed black kid, at most.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by hajario

I was being serious. Assault? Manslaughter? First degree Murder?

What does the prosecutor say?

[hajario]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

What does the prosecutor say?

You're the one who said he was potentially guilty. When you said it, what did you think he was guilty of?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by hajario

You're the one who said he was potentially guilty. When you said it, what did you think he was guilty of?

For pity's sake. I'm not an attorney, so I don't know the exact legal description of the crime of killin someone you oughtnt kill, but that's what he might be guilty of. And your line of questioning is kind of ridiculous, and that's my last word on this back-and-forth.