To tell you the truth, we may be. Judges have a lot of cases on their dockets, and they like to get through them as quickly as they can. So a prosecutor who opens cross-ex with patently irrelevant questions on homeowner association bylaws and “What would you have done if it wasn’t Martin doing whatever Martin was doing, but instead was a little old lady doing it?” and who looks like they have no real feasible plan to elicit testimony germane to the elements of the crime or to undermine the credibility of specific allegations by the witness using admissible testimony and evidence (i.e., not by asking “Mr. Zimmerman, you only suspected Trayvon because he was black, right? No? Let me ask you again: It was the black thing, right? Still no? Okay, I don’t mean to be repetitive, but I’m pretty sure you suspected Trayvon because he was black, correct? No again!? Dammit! This time say “yes” OK? … All right: Did you suspect Trayvon because he was black?”) is going to find their cross-ex (which can become quite dilatory if not kept on a short leash) rapidly concluded.
Maps. My witness could not review them and what I am seeking from my witness is specificity. it’s been adequately demonstrated that the story sells when it is general. I believe it falls apart when it gets specific. And it can’t be specific without the maps. so I couldn’t leap ahead I had to work with what my witness was giving me and wait for him to answer now that he has I will be asking more questions.
I admit that i’m not an expert on every single story that has emerged about this case, but i’m having trouble seeing how the whole map thing is going to substantially swing the issue in the direction that you suggest. Nothing that Bricker has said here so far, in my opinion, is likely to be substantially contradicted by more specific location information.
And i say that as someone who believes that:
- Zimmerman most likely did follow Martin mainly because he was black
2a) standing over a dead person with a smoking gun in your hand should be sufficient probably cause for an arrest
2b) Zimmerman should have been arrested at the scene
3a) the police department fucked up the initial investigation
3b) had the police come upon Martin standing over a dead Zimmerman, with all other evidence at the scene identical, they would have arrested Martin
But what i believe, and what can be proved in a court of law, are not necessarily the same thing. You don’t seem very inclined to make such a distinction.
Thank you Ron!
Today’s court testimony has been riveting. State Attorney Stoid has asked the defendant several pointed questions about his reasons for finding Trayvon Martin <airquote> suspicious </airquote>. Zimmerman responded that the young man was suspicious because he was walking slowly in the rain. There were also questions about when Zimmerman first saw Martin, but the answers were rather vague. Several legal analysts have wondered about the nature of State Attorney Stoid’s questioning. Some think the questions are a waste of the limited time the prosecution has available, and if they’ll ever evoke a response from Zimmerman that would bolster the prosecution case. Other analysts believe the questions are reasonable. But like us, they are all just guessing because this is the end of the defense case and all the rest of the trial has been held behind closed doors and we have no idea what testimony preceded this. So far, the majority of legal analysts I’ve heard from agree that nobody has any idea what is going on here.
Back to you Ron!
Exactly. Useless for this exercise and nicely handled at the outset with the narrative refresher.
But in my limited, yet extremely vivid experience, the douchebaggy tools that like those questions and that whole style of inquiry are 100% ok with being complete doucheytools AND: it works. A lot. (That’s also why they lie. It works. A lot.)
I was deposed for two days (!) in my civil adventure, and the fella deposing me LOVED those questions, along with"When did you stop beating your wife?" questions. The goal, obviously, being to get you to “admit” something that isn’t true just because of the way it was phrased.
Fortunately for me (not that it mattered in the big picture…) I happen to be a really gifted Taboo player - seriously, I’m a like a fucking savant or something - and it turns out that testifying is a lot like playing Taboo, most especially when you are dealing with someone who likes those kinds of questions and is absolutely determined to wear you down with them.
So because of my awesome applied Taboo skills, I have to say that even to this day, with everything, I still enjoy the hell out of reading those deposition transcripts. By the end of Day Two he was literally spitting on himself with frustration. And his assistant later told me (we were chummy…don’t ask) that she was giving the task of finding something to hang me with and she said she couldn’t find a single thing. So that was fun. Gotta get your jollies where you can…
Maybe it won’t. But a pretty good number of people here and “out there” have identified several ways in which it easily could. But that’s what this is for, so we’ll see.
How did doing so well on the stand work out for you?
…
Yeah, a large volume of blathering on the internet working from third hand info. I can’t believe that you don’t see how useless this fake court room is when one half is a legally illiterate prosecutor and the other is a defense that will “fill in the blanks with a scenario [he] create[s]”.
I mean, I know arguing is fun but don’t pretend this is going to shed a single photon on the reality of the Zimmerman trial.
Aha, but did you take into account all of the italics, underlining, and bolding that will be used on this? Still think it’s a useless exercise?
Case Closed!
We the jury find Nzinga, Seated GUILTY!!! of being selfish. She had plenty of time to steal sneakers for everyone on the jury stand.
Your honor, I object to this entire line of questioning. The witness is not on trial here!
*blinks. *stares blankly at the silence.
Ah, so he is. Objection, withdrawn.
I wouldn’t.
I did not draw such a conclusion. Please respond to what I actually said, not what you imagine or wish that I said.
If you say so, but it strikes me as an odd coincidence that your badgering was focused on the one of the main issues in this country which the Left obsesses over – race.
Right there dude. You seriously forget saying that?
Not at all.
Do you understand the difference between “a key part of the case” and “the key part of the case”?
Do you understand what the word “perhaps” means?
Do you understand that “Perhaps X is true” does not mean the same thing as “I conclude that X is true”?
Seriously, do you understand these things?
Wow, overreact to semantics much? You made a premature claim about the “key part of the case” based on hearing only a handful of questions. No matter how I phrased my questions.
Alright, so what makes you think that the first few questions asked = a key part/perhaps the key part of the case. What does your statement mean then?
Does that apply to “Can you state your name?” too? That must be really key because its the first question asked usually right?
I have no idea what this question means. You misstated my position. Kindly apologize.
Possibly, if she had asked the same question repeatedly in hopes of getting a desired answer. (By the way, we are talking about what you and Stoid consider to be “key,” not necessarily what I see as important.)
Anyway, you yourself stated (in essence) that Stoid was trying to establish “a key part of the case” by repeatedly asking about the reasons for Zimmerman’s suspicion. So it would seem that according to you, the possibility of Zimmerman engaging in racial profiling is a “key” part of the case. Agreed?
You insulted my intelligence and I should apologize to you? wow.
I said that it was in the affidavit, therefore why wouldn’t it be asked about.
What is unreasonable about that?
So far the lines of questioning actually remind me of walking slowly in the rain: depressing, boring, and not in a hurry to get anywhere.