# In which Stoid (The Prosecutor) Cross-examines Bricker (George Zimmerman) **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 22, 2012, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561 "2012-04-22T05:35:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/61 "2012-04-23T06:27:12Z")
**Stoid** , it’s one thing to request that the scope of the conversation be circumscribed or defined in order to eliminate hijacks, or to focus on a particular aspect of a subject. But your criteria seem to limit this conversation to just you and **Bricker** , with no room for anyone else to even participate. If you feel that **Kimmy\_Gibbler** ’s contributions constitute a hijack, then why not simply take **Bricker** ’s advice, which you quoted in your post, and ignore it? You don’t get to say, “Please stay out of our thread.” That’s not how this place works. If you and **Bricker** want to essentially have a two-person mock trial, that’s fine, but you can’t prevent other people from chiming in with their opinions and questions. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/62 "2012-04-23T07:08:29Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > You don’t get to say, “Please stay out of our thread.” That’s not how this place works. If you and **Bricker** want to essentially have a two-person mock trial, that’s fine, but you can’t prevent other people from chiming in with their opinions and questions. I didn’t say stay out. You’ll note I didn’t make a fuss about the other people’s participation. I said stop playing lawyer. Stop inserting yourself into our two-person trial. Stop chiming in about legal tactics, _because that’s not what the thread is about._ Bricker is 100% capable and since _ **he** _ is the person who is volunteering to be Zimmerman in order to test the story, _ **he** _ can object when he thinks it’s appropriate or otherwise explain and discuss it with me when _he_ thinks the questions aren’t working _ **for the purpose of the thread.** _ We can always ignore threadshitting and jerkiness and trolls and anything else that people do to spoil the thread, but we also call it out and we can always ask nicely for people not to do it. And people can always be unpleasant in response. Happens every day. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/63 "2012-04-23T07:13:27Z")
And my witness needs to get with the answers, man… I’m kinda stuck until he answers the mappy questions. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/64 "2012-04-23T08:21:44Z")
It’s not threadshitting in a mock trial thread to point out that a question could not be asked at a trial, quite the opposite in fact. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/65 "2012-04-23T13:02:58Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > It’s not threadshitting in a mock trial thread to point out that a question could not be asked at a trial, quite the opposite in fact. Perhaps not, but it’s fascinating that **Stoid** ’s main strategy is to badger Zimmerman into (hopefully) admitting that Martin’s race played into Zimmerman’s decision-making process. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/66 "2012-04-23T13:11:16Z")
That would go to the profiling part of the affidavit, through right? Why wouldn’t Stoid try to establish a key part of the case? ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/67 "2012-04-23T13:27:02Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > It’s not threadshitting in a mock trial thread to point out that a question could not be asked at a trial, quite the opposite in fact. Yeah, I almost feel like it’s necessary, actually. Except that it depends on what **Stoid’s** goal is. Is it to see if the story will hang together in court, or is it to see if the story hangs together for **Stoid**? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/68 "2012-04-23T13:29:46Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Kimmy, can you please refrain from playing lawyer? Bricker and I agreed to do this thread with each other, and I’d really appreciate it if you would just leave it to Bricker to be his defense attorney. Please. Not least because the point is not really to play lawyer so much as it is to see if Bricker can make Zimmerman’s story work. > > Thank you. Well, why don’t you just PM each other then. This isn’t your private message board. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/69 "2012-04-23T13:37:00Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > I don’t want us to get too lost, Mr. Zimmerman, so I’m restating my map-related questions to help you focus when you have an opportunity to examine the map so you can answer the following questions. Please, as much as you are able, indicate the time periods for each event or period between. Just your best approximation, of course. > What were you doing when you first saw Trayvon, the point at which you observed him and he sruck you as suspicious? Well, I know this is important, but I wasn’t checking my watch or anything as these events happened. I don’t think anyone can say, “I left the movie theater at 7:23 and 45 seconds,” you know. As best I recall, it was about 7:00 PM when I first saw the person I now know was Treyvon Martin. Like I said, he was walking along the street, away from your purple circle on the map towards the #2 area on the map, but walking really slowly and checking out the houses like he was trying to find one with nobody home. > [@](#): > > If you were traveling in your truck, which direction were you facing, where were you, and where was Trayvon? I was in my truck. I had just turned right from Oregon Ave and was on what I now know was Twin Trees, passing perpendicular to an imaginary line drawn between points 1 and 2 on your map. I stopped briefly after I passed him as I made the call so he was actually coming towards me. Then he passed me and I began to follow him in my truck, passing along the yellow arrow on your map. Then he started running, and I followed him, and he kept going straight even though the street curves, basically cutting between two buildings. > [@](#): > > At that time, when you first observed Trayvon, did you continue moving, did you stop, did you park, did you change direction? At first I stopped, then started moving slowly, like I said. I didn’t really change direction. > [@](#): > > How long after you first observed Trayvon did you call the police, and where were you when you did so? It was maybe a minute after I saw him. Maybe less. It was obvious right away he wasn’t just walking along like a regular person would do if he was caught in the rain, so he caught my attention right away. Since we have had several break-ins in the neighborhood, and that’s what they do, they try to find a house with no one in, break in, and steal whatever they can sell quickly. Like I said, I was driving past him, perpendicular to a line between 1 and 2 on your map, and then I slowed on the street so he was walking towards me from purple circle 1. > [@](#): > > If you have not already indicated and described it, please explain how your position changed relative to the start, and how Trayvon’s changed, if it did. _Asked and answered._ [li] Where was Trayvon when you told the dispatcher he was coming towards you?[/li] _Asked and answered_. > [@](#): > > ] Where was Trayvon when you told the dispatcher he was running, and where did he run to that you lost sight of him? I was in the green circle, and he was running towards blue oval 4. > [@](#): > > Where did you go at that point, when you lost sight of him? I assume you went somewhere, changed your position in some way because you lost track of where you were. I didn’t remember which curve of Twin Trees I was on. See, maybe it sounds a little silly but Twin Trees isn’t a straight block type street. It curves in three places, so it runs east-west, then north-south, then east-west again, then north-south again. And all the buildings are the same. And it was dark, and raining, and I already thought I screwed up by telling the police the wrong address, I think I told them 111 for the clubhouse address. So I got out of the truck to see which one of the curves of Twin Trees I was on. > [@](#): > > Do you mean you followed him on foot, that you exited the vehicle, or do you mean that you drove after him somehow? Please refer to the map in explaining your answer. First I followed him in the truck, then I got out of the truck to check the sign, and I did that at #3 circle on the map. > [@](#): > > Do you mean us to understand, then, that you disregarded the dispatcher and persisted in following Trayvon, either on foot or your vehicle? Or should we take this simply as commentary? The dispatcher didn’t say, “We order you not to follow him.” But, yes, I wish I hadn’t followed him. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/70 "2012-04-23T13:50:09Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > So according to your testimony, you found Trayvon suspicious and you feared he might be a burglar casing the neighborhood. You came to this fear or belief based on the following things: > [ul] > [li]He was walking slowly, which you found odd because of the rain and it also made you think he might be on drugs[/li][li]He was looking at houses in a manner that suggested to you that he was trying to see if people were home, the way a burglar would do.[/li][/ul] Yes. > [@](#): > > I would be interested to know if you can describe for us the particulars of the way someone looks at house that, for you, distinguishes it as someone who is casing a house in hopes of targeting it for burglary from the way anyone else might look at houses from simple curiosity. > > Since these are the only things that led you to find Trayvon suspicious, can we safely assume that if the person you saw walking slowly in the rain and looking at houses had been a middle-aged white woman, you would have suspected her of being a burglar as well? Or a 20-something Asian man? Or a mid-30’s white man in a suit and tie? And that you would have called the police to report the person? _Objection: calls for speculation. A witness may be asked what he saw, and what he took certain events to mean (basically, what he thought, if his thoughts are then relevant to what action he took. A non-expert witness can’t generally be asked his opinion on what a set of facts means, and a witness can’t generally be asked to speculate on what might have happened if some set of facts not in evidence or not at least proferred had occurred. But I’m going to let pseudo-Zimmerman answer this question anyway, for two reasons: (1) the answer doesn’t hurt him, and (2) the prosecution can’t impeach him – that is, show evidence he’s lying – on it. The reason is that these are collateral issues to the facts at trial. You cannot let the trial devolve into a mini-trial on the issue of whether the witness has a habit of reporting young Asian men to 911. His testimony can stand unchallenged. His testimony will include the claim that burglars don’t get dressed up to rob houses. Maybe true, maybe not, but you can’t impeach him with a burglary expert showing that 11% or burglaries are done by men in suits and ties._ If I saw a guy in a suit and tie walking in the rain, slowly? Yeah, I’d think he was on drugs too. Maybe not a burglar, because as we all know burglars don’t get dressed up to rob houses, but I’d sure think he was a stalker or a mental patient or someone acting weird and I’d call, you bet. Same for anyone. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/71 "2012-04-23T14:05:01Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > I’m down with it! > > Bailiff, remove that man! You made the rules… I guess you can decide to ignore them (rather than the other posters) too. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/72 "2012-04-23T14:13:20Z")
> [@What\_the](#): > > You made the rules… I guess you can decide to ignore them (rather than the other posters) too. Sorry…first read of this thread and replied before I saw that it seems to be back on target…will not do so again. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/73 "2012-04-23T14:18:11Z")
murmer murmer murmer ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/74 "2012-04-23T14:20:48Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > That would go to the profiling part of the affidavit, through right? Agree, but not everything in the affidavit is an element of second-degree murder. > [@](#): > > Why wouldn’t Stoid try to establish a key part of the case? No reason at all. But what’s fascinating is that she and you apparently consider it a key part of the case, perhaps the key part of the case. ---
**Author:** ![don\_t\_ask](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@don\_t\_ask](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/don_t_ask)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/75 "2012-04-23T14:25:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If I saw a guy in a suit and tie walking in the rain, slowly? Yeah, I’d think he was on drugs too. Maybe not a burglar, because as we all know burglars don’t get dressed up to rob houses, … Sometimes they do - [“Well-Dressed” Burglar Breaking into Upper East Side Apartments, Businesses: Police](http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Well-Dressed-Burglar-Upper-East-Side-Manhattan-Break-ins-146898465.html) ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/76 "2012-04-23T14:32:14Z")
> [@don\_t\_ask](#): > > Sometimes they do - [“Well-Dressed” Burglar Breaking into Upper East Side Apartments, Businesses: Police](http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Well-Dressed-Burglar-Upper-East-Side-Manhattan-Break-ins-146898465.html) Dustin Hoffman: Why are you guys attacking me? Mugger 1: we’re mugging you DH: But you’re _well-dressed!_ Mugger 2; We’re _successful_ muggers. ``` --- *Marathon Mess*, Mad magazine parody of *Marathon Man* (written by Stan Hart), issue #191 June 1977 ``` ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/77 "2012-04-23T14:37:42Z")
> [@don\_t\_ask](#): > > Sometimes they do - [“Well-Dressed” Burglar Breaking into Upper East Side Apartments, Businesses: Police](http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Well-Dressed-Burglar-Upper-East-Side-Manhattan-Break-ins-146898465.html) Ah, the beauty of extrinsic evidence. Completely inadmissible. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/78 "2012-04-23T15:09:05Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > That would go to the profiling part of the affidavit, through right? Why wouldn’t Stoid try to establish a key part of the case? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/79 "2012-04-23T15:12:25Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > murmer murmer murmer 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561/80 "2012-04-23T15:16:02Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > No reason at all. But what’s fascinating is that she and you apparently consider it a key part of the case, perhaps the key part of the case. Actully I don’t, I’m just being thorough in probing all the aspects that people are talking about. I’m on record already in several places with my genuine belief that while he absolutely did do some profiling, it’s ridiculous to think otherwise, I dont’ think that’s a big deal or an indication that he’s some racist fuckwad out to kill black kids. I think he’s an idiot who shouldn’t play with guns. Plus my witness seemed a little defensive about it… Now I must review his answers. Along with doing some real life. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-stoid-the-prosecutor-cross-examines-bricker-george-zimmerman/619561.md?page=5)