And what kind of behavior would you call twisting phrases to support your argument?
If you were the one presenting it, how would you?
I didn’t dismiss it as irrelevant. I corrected the inaccuracy in the statement.
Untrue. We have the audio showing that he stopped running, and the confrontation happened not far from his truck. In fact, it is the complete opposite. We have no evidence Zimmerman continued to follow Martin.
If I were defending Martin, I’m beginning to think I might ask for a bench trial.
You’re right: a jury would likely give some weight to the dispatcher thing. But they really shouldn’t. Normally, the defense could exclude that fact, but the prosecution can argue a res gestae need to put it in.
A judge might be the best fact-finder for Zimmerman.
This question constitutes strawman behavior, so I’ll decline to answer it.
Nah, it’s plenty stupid to call someone for help and then cherry-pick their advice for ill-conceived reasons. A 911 dispatcher has expertise that an average schmoe does not, so the average schmoe needs to defer to the dispatcher’s advice. If they don’t take that advice, then they need to take responsibility for the consequences of such disregard. In Zimmerman’s case, that means standing trial for murder.
If the 911 dispatcher had advised Zimmerman to chase after Martin, and Zimmerman had been the one wound up shot, everyone and their mama’s mama would be faulting the dispatcher. If not criminal proceedings, there would definitely be some civil ones. So it’s silly to act as though what the dispatcher says is unimportant.
It’s probably admissible.
As a defense attorney, I would argue that it should be excluded because the probative value is far exceeded by the prejudicial value. In other words, I’d say that the jury will likely assigned all sorts of improper inferences to this fact - as we’ve seen here. And the slight value it adds to the story doesn’t outweigh the prejudice.
The prosecution would argue that it’s critical as part of the res gestae – the complete story. Without it, the jury might get the sense that Zimmerman was operating with the approval of the authorities, which is also not true.
The prosecution would probably win that argument. I might get a limiting instruction – in other words, the judge might say, “OK, to cure the improper inference, I will tell the jury, ‘You have just heard that Mr. Zimmerman was told by the 911 dispatcher that they don’t need him to follow the suspect. I’m instructing you that the 911 operator’s statement was not legally significant, not an order that Mr. Zimmerman was required to obey, and that Mr. Zimmerman broke no law by ignoring it.’”
You still haven’t explained why they shouldn’t. Which probably means you can’t, since you’ve had quite a while to think of a better response than this one.
I just told you that how it is presented is not my point. So if that’s the game you want to play, I’m not interested. This point has been shot down every single time regardless of whether the person said “police” or “911 operator”. So your claim of “I didn’t dismiss it as irrelevant. I corrected the inaccuracy in the statement.” rings pretty hollow.
When have you ever agreed that this is a relevant fact? And if it is a relevant fact, then your correction is simply nit-picking, no? Since you must be aware that the judge will ensure that the question is asked properly at trial, right?
We have evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin; he said so himself. We have no evidence he ever stopped following Martin; he can still follow Martin even if he stopped running.
That was my point. You decided to argue with that point.
It isn’t clear that this case will actually get to trial.
Unfortunately the article is behind a paywall.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-11/news/os-george-zimmerman-stand-your-ground-hearings-20120411_1_eric-sandhaus-craig-sandhaus-milton-torres
Because as a matter of law, there is no authority for the proposition that following Martin was reckless. But there are some people, some people who may become jurors, who might conclude that it was.
The fact that the evidence isn’t convincing to you doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. What evidence that definitively doesn’t exist is any indicating that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin.
I don’t think I did, but if you see it that way, I can’t really help you. Here is my initial post on the topic again:
"Do you think that this fact will come up in trial?
If so, then why is it not a relevant fact to the case as to his mental state at the time? Remember noone is saying that he had a duty to listen or that he was breaking a law by disregarding, just that it is a relevant piece of information to the case."
Where did I argue with your nitpicking over phrasing of the question? Can I assume that you are going to stop nit-picking every time someone brings this point up given that you seem to admit that it is a relevant point with your refusal to answer the question, and given that we can all assume that the judge will ensure this is presented properly at trial? Can I expect to not see you continue to repost the same irrelevant nit-pick then?
I certainly hope Zimmerman pins his defense on that logic.
I may have the geography wrong, but from the little maps I’ve seen, it looks like Zimmerman’s truck was parked out in the street, near the entrance of the community, but Martin was shot on the walkway behind the houses.
On that 911 call, you can hear him getting out of his truck (you can hear the door binging), then you hear him huffing and puffing for about 5 seconds when the 911 operator tells him he doesn’t need to follow anyone. So how did he get from where he said, “ok” to the back of the buildings if he wasn’t following Martin?
Oh yeah, I forgot, he got lost and was looking for a street sign. In a yard.
I also addressed my post to:
“Can someone who is dismissing the fact of Z ignoring the 911 operator answer this:”
So when you answered me you agreed that you have been dismissing this fact. Otherwise I wasn’t talking to you was I?
Since you refused to answer my questions several times, what’s good for the goose…
It was only 150-200 feet from Zimmerman’s truck to where the altercation was. A distance pretty easily covered in ~10 seconds of running.