It’s a pity that you’re not connected to the internet, so that you can’t look things up. Here, I’ll do it for you:
Murder:
2. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously
3. something outrageous or blameworthy
Glad I could help.
Yes, strawmanning is awful, like those people who claimed Martin “lay in wait.” What an awful strawman.
Which is it; did he double back, or did he lay in wait?
Apparently Trayvon had poor eyesight, since Zimmerman looks rather brown to me, and just about everyone else, not blind.
Well that changes everything. If Martin was actually stalked by a large, scary, angry-looking, armed, shaved-head hispanic man, who stalked him down the street late at night in the rain, then he would have had no reason to be scared.
Correct. There is no evidence of murder that I know about.
And given that an experienced prosecutor has advanced the charge, it’s not crazy to assume that there’s evidence unreleased to the public that would support murder.
So, yes: that I know of.
But at the same time, I don’t think you can call someone a murderer on the strength of the point that there might be evidence which proves it so, but we don’t know about that evidence.
Agreed?
Because the rules of evidence don’t permit it.
The defense has already demanded that the prosecution disclose any and all scientific conclusions the state intends to offer at trial, the identity and curriculum vitae of any experts the state intends to call as expert witnesses in the trial, and any and all bases for those scientific conclusions.
The failure to provide a report means that the state’s expert witness is precluded at trial from mentioning anything else, because the defense would not have been able to hire their own expert to evaluate and properly challenge those conclusions.
This doesn’t come up much on “Franklin and Bash.”
People can say what they want to say, especially in IMHO.
Sure. And other people can point out that what they’re saying is based on no known evidence.
Right?
In a previous post, you didn’t understand the rules of evidence which would forbid an expert witness from testifying only as to what they put in the report, and nothing more.
This is because you’re not a lawyer.
But you haven’t really adopted that humble attitude you allude to above. You have no training or experience in courtroom procedure, evidence, or any of the relatively technical issues associated with legal analysis. Why don’t you take your own advice when it comes to those subjects?
That still doesn’t mean the expert can’t testify about the methods they used for collecting the evidence. As far as I know, the laboratory test methods were not included the document dump; are you really trying to say that means these methods can’t be discussed at trial?
If the defense wants that information, it seems like they could just request that crap specifically. Then the lab would be bound to provide it.
But the State can still put these reports and documents in discovery; it ain’t like the clock has stopped for them. Why act as though the trial is tomorrow instead a year from now? The State has plenty of time to disclose whatever evidence it needs to make the arguments it needs to make, and the defense has plenty of time to attack this evidence.
People can say whatever they want, Bricker.
The operative word is not “can”. So try again.
The existing discovery requests for “any and all” cover this. The state cannot say, “Ask for this specific report before we give it to you,” because the defense has already asked for ALL reports.
Here’s the underlying rationale: there are to be no surprises at trial. This means that the State’s expert witnesses cannot reveal a fact that they have not already documented in discovery, because the defense needs to have a fair chance to read it, run the matter by an expert of their choosing, and if warranted have that expert ready to testify and rebut the prosecution’s witness.
So yes: if the state ran a test of Martin’s hands, as opposed to just his fingernails, and does not provide the results of that test along with the method used to the defense, then the general remedy at trial is to forbid the witness from testifying.
True.
But why are you acting as though you know for sure the state did those tests and didn’t disclose them in response to the discovery requests? Sure, that COULD have happened. Why are you so sure it DID happen?
Obviously not, unless you want to define Alivin York and Audie Murphy as Murderers.
The definition of an a murder is an illegal homicide and even then there are some homicides that are considered justified and other some man slaughters that aren’t considered murders.
If you aren’t going to use the common definition, you need to explain what definition you are using.
Is it alright to call you a murderer if you eat meat? How about swatting a fly?
Do you recognize the concept of self-defense? Do you think anyone has the right to use deadly force to defend themselves?
Where to start.
-It wasn’t late at night.
-He didn’t grab his gun and run after him and shoot him to death.
-You might be a fucking moron but we can’t ascertain that without some -kind of cite. Maybe you could start a separate thread on the matter.
-Zimmerman avoided direct confrontation with Martin throughout the phone call to the police dispatcher and there was nothing in his conversation to Martin that posed a threat and that’s based on Martin’s girlfriend’s account of the conversation.
Martin on the other hand assaulted Zimmerman. He had to go out of his way to confront him in order for this to happen. He did this in a long enough time span that we can hear a lengthy bit of it on a 911 from a nearby house. During the whole event nobody came to his aid. Zimmerman took this beating until his gun was exposed at which time he alleges both went for the gun.
I agree. It had to be one or the other. At this time, I am going with ‘doubling back’ based on the following evidence:
Dee Dee: He say he ain’t goin’ run, cause he say he right by his father house…
Dee Dee: He started walking back again…and I told him ‘Keep runnin’.’
Brandy Green: “he was on his way home, I’m living down here,he was just sitting out on the porch and this man killed him”
Here is Tracy Martin explaining Trayvon’s route. He says Trayvon “did come in that back gate and I knew he was going to the back of the house…HE WAS SITTING OUT THERE.”
Tracy again states “he was sitting out in the back” during a different interview @1:43.
“I feel it was a coverup from the beginning. Honestly, I feel that they are hiding something. What is it they’re hiding? I don’t know. Why they’re protecting him so much? I have no idea”
Trayvon had plenty of time to get home if that was his objective. There is no reason for him to be where GZ was unless that was his objective.
Dee Dee verified that Trayvon did not see Zimmerman exit his vehicle, stated he lost GZ and stated he was almost at his dad’s house before claiming Trayvon saw GZ again. He had plenty of time to get home when he had no reason to believe he was being followed. The much repeated “didn’t want GZ to know which house he lived” myth doesn’t hold water.
To borrow from Crump, “the objective evidence says he pursued, confronted and assaulted” George Zimmerman.
According to both Zimmerman and Martin they lost site of each other. The fight began in a wide open area of visibility. It’s the same area that Martin ran from. Martin has to approach Zimmerman in order for the confrontation to begin and we know it begins by Martin talking to Zimmerman first. The evidence indicates it’s Martin who confronts Zimmerman.
If an SOP for analysis and evidence collection happens to not be in the document dump right this very minute, a reasonable person should wonder how likely it is that this absence is because written protocols are completely nonexistent. Do you think they are?
Yep, that’s right, Bricker. Florida’s analysts just go in the lab without any kind of written procedures to hold them accountable. They just go in there and swipe stuff with their little swabs and pop them in their little machines and expect all to be good.
That sounds like a reasonable conclusion to draw to you?
I don’t think Florida is necessarily the creme de la creme for forsenic criminology, but I’m not arrogant enough to assume that because the prosecution hasn’t put certain materials into discovery as of yet that means this material doesn’t exist, or that the information won’t be offered up at trial.
I’m not saying they did do those tests. I’m saying I don’t have the necessary qualifications to determine anything significant about Martin’s hands based on the reports provided, because the rules that govern appropriate evidence collection for forensic testing are beknowst to me.
I find it highly unlikely these guys would have taken the time to test Martin’s hoodie , his undershirt, and his fingernail clippings for Z’s blood and DNA, and yet somehow they overlooked a pair of bloody hands. What would have possessed them to test his clothes, if his hands for some reason were considered unimportant? That doesn’t make sense to me, and so unless I’m shown otherwise, I assume there was a scientific reason his fingernails were sampled but not the rest of his hands.
Bottom line,is that nobody knows exactly what happened. I for one will not be renewing my NRA membership solely based on the organization that begs for money daily from us while talking of all the great things they do for gun rights, has not stepped up and declared their financial help for mr. Z’s defense fund. That is the very least they should do for a gun owner and carry permit holder who’s very freedom is on the line and who may very well be an innocent party in this liberal media witch hunt .
But notice how you change the parameters:
So we begin to discuss hands that tested negative for even microscopic traces of Zimmerman’s blood. And then we arrive at:
Sure, it’s unlikely that they overlooked a pair of bloody hands. But it’s not nearly as unlikely that they overlooked microscopic traces of Zimmerman’s blood.
And you never acknowledged the shift in the standard, going from microscopic traces of Zimmerman’s blood to “bloody hands” as suited you.
It’s 5:15 here, and it’s as dark as it’s going to get all night. I’m in the same timezone as Martin
Do you disagree that he had a gun, that he shot him to death, or that he “grabbed” it? Unless it’s one of the first two it seems like a stupid and pointless nitpicking.
A point in my favor: I’ve never caused a situation which resulted in anyone getting shot to death. A point against me: I’m participating in this stupid fucking thread.
I’m going to find a 19 year old girl, slowly follow her down the street in the dark, then when she runs away, I’m going to chase her down, confront her, and say “do you have the time?” I promise to act surprised if she seems scared.