If it “isn’t clear that he was following Martin after that comment was made,” then swearing that “Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher [when you know, via the recorded call, that Zimmerman says “Ok” to the instruction] and continued to follow Martin” is…what, exactly?
Apparently not, since they rested their case.
It is a factual allegation relevant to probable cause. One need not need factual certainty to make an allegation relevant to probable cause.
What does “probable cause” have to do with a criminal conviction?
Regards,
Shodan
If you accept DD’S testimony at face value, Martin was at his father’s house, the phone disconnected, twenty seconds later it reconnected, than two minutes later the confrontation begin. During the time Martin was allegedly at his father’s house, Zimmerman was on the phone talking to the dispatcher. The wind sound had gone away, there was no sound of feet hitting the pavement, Zimmerman was talking in a conversational tone of voice, and not breathing hard, as if he were trying to gain lost distance. Impartial jurors notice these things..
Isn’t it a curious that after nearly every witness there was some post there were comments about it? Isn’t it also curious that not one clown here has made a comment about the defenses witnesses? Isn’t it curious how the clowns here hated on DeeDee’s “incomprehensible” testimony but said nothing of Dr. Boa’s muttering and meandering on the stand? Curious, indeed. I’m merely bringing the defenses witnesses to the foreground. If that means I’m wearing a grey hoodie to designate me as “Team Trayvon” because of that, then so be it.
If you remove the first and the last sentence, that about describes my position. When you got a guy who’s been arrested, got into a fight with cops, accused of molestation, accused of bullying one’s colleagues, and even caught red-handed in perjury with his partner in crime, Shelly Zimmerman. He’s a not just a liar, you’ve correctly identified him as a pathological one. He lies so much that he has to rethink about the previous lie he told so that it doesn’t contradict the first. I find it almost inconceivable that no one else can see this.
- Honesty
I’ll give the benefit of the doubt on “at” the house. I’ll stipulate that “near” or “in back of” the house could be interpreted as anywhere south of the T in the sidewalk.
(In terms of opinion, I think TM doubled back north and attacked Zimmerman.)
The defense witnesses were fine. Get them on the record that it’s Zimmerman’s voice screaming. Two (biased) witnesses say it’s Trayvon, and two (biased) witnesses say it’s Zimmerman. Jury would, hopefully, just have to disregard all of that and go with the sound expert who can’t conclude anything about who’s screaming.
Plus, the defense puts time between Tray’s mom and brother’s testimony and the weekend recess. Now, the last thing the juror’s hear is the emotional testimony of Zimmerman’s uncle, instead of the lingering image of Trayvon’s mom.
Tweets from reporters in the courtroom indicated that the jury was finally showing interest once the first defense witness was called, and that the uncle’s testimony was the first real emotional moment in the trial that they’ve observed.
The ballsy move would have been for the defense to just immediately rest, essentially telling the jurors “look, the state’s already proven OUR case.” But it’s understandable why they didn’t. We’ve seen what’s probably a reasonable approximation of the defense’s closing (minus the boatload of caselaw citations) in the motion for a directed verdict, and it’s pretty good.
But, again, I must repeat: if you’re going to bring Zimmerman’s history into the case, you don’t get to ignore Martin’s. And you really, really don’t want his history brought before the jury, do you? Or the toxicology from the night he was killed?
That’s your opinion but it’s not true. Biologically, the human brain does not mature to around age 25. The last part of the brain to mature is the prefrontal cortex which governs executive function. Lawfully, the age of adulthood is 18, not 17.
- Honesty
It’s the standard required for bringing the case to trial. The affidavit has to show probable cause that Zimmerman committed the crime they accused him of.
The age of criminal responsibility is far lower, no higher than 12 anywhere in the US. At that age, one is supposed to understand the difference between right and wrong legal and illegal, and know not to break the law or you will face consequences.
Martin could and should have known that attacking Zimmerman would have consequences, and could and should have known not to do it, and could and should have known that for several years. His “immaturity” is not a factor here.
Shodan, I think you must have missed that we were discussing Rubin’s column, which was taking issue with the allegations contained (and not contained) in the State’s Affidavit of Probable Cause. Or are you asking what role the Affidavit of Probable Cause plays in Florida criminal procedure?
I think the prosecutor bypassed the grand jury on this case - does that affect anything?
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, I missed that - hmarvin’s post came in between.
Regards,
Shodan
Wow. You’re so clueless, you think Boa was a defense’s witness.
Did ya not notice in the very post that you quoted from me that I specifically mention the cognitive development of the prefrontal cortex? I did well enough in neurological psychology in college to make it into Psi Chi. I’m happy to scan my membership card for ya, if you’d like to trade credentials. You know, since we’re talking about people’s expertise and history and all.
LOL. He was. He just happened to be called by the prosecution.
Again, biologically, the area that governs “right and wrong” and “good from bad” matures at age 25. Not how much clearer I can make it. I would post the peer-reviewed papers to show this, but it’s not like it’d change any hearts or minds here nor would anyone read them. As for the law, the law believes that having < 10 ng/mL of THC is driving while intoxicated, so far as I’m concerned, the law is light years behind science (as usual).
- Honesty
???
Boa was a prosecution’s witness. You really have no clue, do you?
Let 'em keep digging. It’s funnier when they don’t know.