You say you saw Trayvon when you were “returning” to your truck, your locations were like this, and he was facing away from you. So you must have walked past him and failed to see him, right?
(I’m in the middle of something that I have to finish by tomorrow night, sorry I can’t be more focused…)
As it’s Stoid’s thread and there’s not a need for a judge in her opinion above, I’ll withdraw the offer. But, y’all ever do another mock trial, and I’m procrastinating, my hat’s in the ring.
I kick ass at objections/evidence and will never be able to run for judge due to, ah, certain youthful indiscretions. 
No, he wasn’t facing away from me when I first saw him there. But yes, I must have walked past him. I think he was hiding up against a house or something.
From DeeDee’s testimony we know that he was talking to her about the scary man following him, so you’re probably right.
Where was the can of tea that Trayvon had in his hand when he punched you?
Have you had any training in self-defense, martial arts, or anything related to handling violence?
Why wouldn’t you give the dispatcher a location for the police to meet you, instead asking them to call you when they arrived?
I couldn’t tell at the time where it was, but one of the cops later told me they found a can of tea and a package of Skittles in Treyvon’s pockets.
No.
I wasn’t sure where I would be when they got there. I hoped to keep Treyvon in sight and so it made more sense to have them call me when they arrived and I could give them my then-current location.
Have you ever done any work providing private security for parties? (*I know that theres’ some issue with talking about his being fired for aggression unless…? But I can ask about employment, can’t I? And yes, I have a reason that doesn’t involve talking about his getting fired for aggressiveness, although if I CAN ask about that of course it would be swell. So what are the limits on asking him about his behavior outside of the night in question?) *
So why did you say “Ok” when the dispatcher told you it wasn’t necessary for you to keep chasing him if you knew you were going to ignore it and persist in following him no matter what? Why weren’t you honest with the dispatcher and tell him frankly that you were going to keep after Trayvon?
Objection! *Badgering the witness. *
Stoid, do you have any idea where the fuck you’re going with this? Do you really think some minor issue about Zimmerman’s story is going to make the jury find him guilty? That’s not how it works.
Yes.
Put me in the minority here, I guess, but I actually think Stoid is getting somewhere with this. I think this thread is a really interesting idea (and really wish people would stop belly-aching about it - if you don’t like the pace of the thread stop reading it, FFS).
Objection - irrelevant.
Regards,
Shodan
*The issue here involves what’s often called 404(b) evidence, after the section of the evidence code defining it: prior bad acts and their admissibility. In general, you can’t bring up something bad the defendant did in the past for the purpose of arguing to the jury, “See? He acted like that before, so we know he probably did the same thing now!”
There are exceptions to this general rule. You can bring in prior felony convictions, but only for the purpose of impeaching the defendant’s credibility. That is, you can say to the jury, “Don’t believe him; he’s a thrice-convicted felon, so of course he’s ready to lie on the stand.”
You can bring up prior bad acts to show a common plan, scheme, or motive. There’s a lot of detail about this that I’ll leave out for now, but in general the idea is that if the accused had some sort of ‘signature’ or some very unusual twist or practice, you could bring up his prior instances and show that the same thing occurred in the present case.
Finally, there’s absence of mistake. A shoplifting accusation might be met with the defense of, “I honestly forgot I had those in my hand when I walked out of the store.” If that defense is made, the prosecution can introduce prior shoplifting convictions and argue to the jury that a mistake like that in unlikely from someone who has already been accused and convicted of shoplifting before.
So – based on your statement that you have some acceptable reason for asking this, I’ll answer it, but you’re right to think you can’t ask him if he was fired or disciplined for ‘aggressiveness’ in connection with that job.*
Yes, I’ve done private security work for parties.
I wasn’t dishonest, either. OK, I hear you, is not the same thing as “I will comply with your suggestion.” I said OK because I knew they didn’t NEED me to follow him but i also knew that if I didn’t, I’d be talking to the police officer trying to describe him and he’d be long gone. And with all the break-ins we’ve been having, I wanted the police to get this guy’s name and information.
I didn’t ask Stoid to elaborate on her reason for asking, but I can think of several reasons it might be relevant. of course. we’re handicapped here by having no record developed in the prosecution’s case-in-chief and no record from the defense’s direct examination of Zimmerman, but it’s not outside the bounds of credulity to imagine that something came up that makes this question relevant, especially since the prosecution’s case and the direct examination of Zimmerman must have included the description of the physical grappling between Zimmerman and Martin.
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.
I thought of that, which is why I said ‘no’ to the training question; wanted to nip in the bud anything along the lines of ‘based on your training, would you say…’
ETA: do you have anything to add that I missed in my 404(b) discussion?
Nope. All good there, and think there’s a concession there anyway.