Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Defense is very slyly getting into evidence that "George is a good guy" and many people liked/like him, without actually having to try to get that testimony about his reputation in the community in via reputation/character rules. That's what these witnesses sound like to me, character witnesses, they ALL have given testimony that focused on George was a good friend and they would recognize any scream as George's voice/scream. Most of what they've gotten across is that they of course have a positive bias about George, would recognize any voice as George's voice, and how much they all liked/like him. George is just a "great guy." So great we give him money, food, clothes, etc., etc. This "George is a great guy" is also part of the Defense strategy, IMO. Interesting how they're getting around the reputation/character rules for this "reputation in the community" testimony.
It's an excellent strategy. Not only that, but it also nails down the Who Is Yelling for Help question, by asking for the opinion of witnesses that have created their own credibility before the jury. It's the direct opposite of asking a witness "Do you still beat your wife?".
The state blew their chance at providing a well-defined theory backed by evidence, their only chance is to impeach the defense witnesses. So far, not going well. I suspect all of the defense witnesses will be a very believable demographic for the jury. Well-stateged play, which is what trials like this are. The state is doing better, but still not gaining points.
Have you ever used the term "creepy ass cracker" or "ni**er", as Martin did? Do those terms make him out as less than a saint too? Or is that somehow...different?
Now, those terms, I have never used. Not even while growing up in the South. However, I can certainly appreciate why a black kid growing up in the South would use them, and rightfully so.
So, your point is? Perhaps you could answer the question I posed. Why do you think the MSM has been so reluctant to publish this relevant fact?
Probably for much the same reason they didn't go head over heels for Zimmerman's cousin, who had accused George of molestation for years. Could be lack of credibility?
You have nothing but compassion for them, unless of course they are testifying in support of someone that you dislike.
There you go again, making assumptions about me with no basis in fact. No where on this site (or any where else,for that matter) have I ever expressed a dislike or hatred toward Zimmerman or his friends who are sticking up for him. I would EXPECT his friends to be bias in his George's favor.
All I'm saying is that Zimmerman's friend, having once been a medic in a war zone, would experience some of the same stress-filled feelings that he had back when he was a medic upon hearing that 911 for the first time and that would color his judgement of who was screaming. He already knew about the shooting before hearing it and subconsciously was expecting to hear George, so he did. Whether that is fact or not, no one really knows but George and he as a vested interest in not saying. Bias witness.
Now, those terms, I have never used. Not even while growing up in the South. However, I can certainly appreciate why a black kid growing up in the South would use them, and rightfully so.
Would that be for similar reasons that a neighborhood watch volunteer might use the term "f_ing punks" to refer to burglars or criminals?
I do have to ask something though. I thought the "n word" was considered offensive to use, it's one I avoid. Why would you find it acceptable for "a black kid growing up in the South" to use it? Or isn't he offended by the word?
Probably for much the same reason they didn't go head over heels for Zimmerman's cousin, who had accused George of molestation for years. Could be lack of credibility?
It's an excellent strategy. Not only that, but it also nails down the Who Is Yelling for Help question, by asking for the opinion of witnesses that have created their own credibility before the jury. It's the direct opposite of asking a witness "Do you still beat your wife?".
The state blew their chance at providing a well-defined theory backed by evidence, their only chance is to impeach the defense witnesses. So far, not going well. I suspect all of the defense witnesses will be a very believable demographic for the jury. Well-stateged play, which is what trials like this are. The state is doing better, but still not gaining points.
Totally disagree that it "nails down" who was screaming. These people are George's FRIENDS, and it was more than obvious they were biased, and some certainly came across as not being credible in their identification of the screams precisely because of their very positive bias toward George.
I also totally disagree with you regarding the State's case. Btw, there's still rebuttal in the future. I'm guessing that maybe the juror from Chicago who just moved to Sanford with the 8 children may not find this "demographic" of witnesses all that believable. I found them all to be trying too hard to "protect" George, especially the woman who kept INSISTING that the recording of George, first making a very audible exasperated sigh, before speaking his very descriptive words about who he "thought" was "getting away" were just non-emotional, matter-of-fact comments.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
