Child killed by Neighborhood Watch captain while walking home

[Anonymous]

Well not exactly. The girlfriend has reported what she heard on the phone. Since she actually overheard some of the exchange between the two, it is not just hearsay. And her statement contradicts Zimmerman's on a really key point, namely that Zimmerman was not walking back to his car when the physical confrontation began.

How is that not hearsay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Zimmerman and anyone else involved should be afraid. Bounty on Zimmerman by the New Black Panthers and Spike Lee tweeting the address in Florida.

I googled that address and it is another area-not that development....obvious from google street view and the map. Do enough checking and you see there are other Zimmermans and other Tracy Martins.

So we now have news media and possibly vigilantes going to a house of an uninvolved person.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/mar/27/picket-spike-lee-re-tweets-incorrect-address-trayv/

The NY Times calling Zimmerman a white hispanic ...is that just to make this more virulent?

My kids are hispanic. They are also white. Maybe that incendiary or maybe it's just factual.

The NYT used that terminology on purpose and it is incendiary. The same newspaper subscribes to the one drop rule when it refers to President Obama has a black president. If they are going to do that, then they should use the same standards here and refer to Zimmerman as only Hispanic.

[Anonymous]

Why do all the news articles today mention Trayvon's school suspensions but not Zimmerman's assault on a police officer or is two domestic violence arrests?

They mention Trayvon's nonviolent past but don't mention Zimmerman's multiple past offenses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:well, unfortunately, I'm guessing 90% of the robberies in that neighborhood were committed by black teens wearing hoodies. that is the unfortunate reality. so while it means nothing with respect to guilt or innocence, it was not totally unreasonable for Z to think the victim was up to no good. Right?

I can't believe what I just read. From what you are saying it follows that a straight A student with perfect behavior, high SES family, wearing a hoodie while black walking though a nice neighborhood, can reasonably be assumed to be up to no good and shot to death. I just wish that people who think like this can be more easily identified as i would not want to have any kind of friendship with such people.

My 10 year old daughter said to me "is it okay for someone to shoot a kid and say he felt threatened by the kid because he was black and wearing a hoodie? Does hat mean that black kids cannot wear hoodies? Even I know that is wrong and if the police did not arrest the man or investigate then they didn't do their job"
From the mouth of babes.

[Anonymous]

I can't believe what I just read. From what you are saying it follows that a straight A student with perfect behavior, high SES family, wearing a hoodie while black walking though a nice neighborhood, can reasonably be assumed to be up to no good and shot to death.

This last part is not at all what was being said. The question relevant tot he exchange you quoted was whether a watch captain in an area with a history of burglaries would have reason to suspect that the individual was "up to no good" such that following him and calling the police would be reasonable. I do not presume to answer that question. But it is a wholly different question from whether a straight A student wearing a hoodies should be shot to death.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Well not exactly. The girlfriend has reported what she heard on the phone. Since she actually overheard some of the exchange between the two, it is not just hearsay. And her statement contradicts Zimmerman's on a really key point, namely that Zimmerman was not walking back to his car when the physical confrontation began.

How is that not hearsay?

It's not hearsay because she heard it directly. It would be hearsay if she's repeating what T told her Z said - but she didn't hear it first hand. Because she heard it first hand, it's not hearsay.

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure if this matters or not, but in one of the 911 tapes, Zimmerman is saying that T is staring at him and walking toward him. Of course that doesn't justify Zimmerman's actions, but doesn't that play into the self defense angle or at least show that T wasn't running away all the time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well, unfortunately, I'm guessing 90% of the robberies in that neighborhood were committed by black teens wearing hoodies. that is the unfortunate reality. so while it means nothing with respect to guilt or innocence, it was not totally unreasonable for Z to think the victim was up to no good. Right?

I can't believe what I just read. From what you are saying it follows that a straight A student with perfect behavior, high SES family, wearing a hoodie while black walking though a nice neighborhood, can reasonably be assumed to be up to no good and shot to death. I just wish that people who think like this can be more easily identified as i would not want to have any kind of friendship with such people.

My 10 year old daughter said to me "is it okay for someone to shoot a kid and say he felt threatened by the kid because he was black and wearing a hoodie? Does hat mean that black kids cannot wear hoodies? Even I know that is wrong and if the police did not arrest the man or investigate then they didn't do their job"
From the mouth of babes.

Is that what you taught your child to ask? Or if his twitter name should be "no limit n****"?Is your child also asking you if it's ok to get suspended from school for possession of stolen jewelry?

Don't be so sensational. Just teach your kids to be good people

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Well not exactly. The girlfriend has reported what she heard on the phone. Since she actually overheard some of the exchange between the two, it is not just hearsay. And her statement contradicts Zimmerman's on a really key point, namely that Zimmerman was not walking back to his car when the physical confrontation began.

How is that not hearsay?

It's not hearsay because she heard it directly. It would be hearsay if she's repeating what T told her Z said - but she didn't hear it first hand. Because she heard it first hand, it's not hearsay.

Sorry, that's simply wrong. Testifying about a statement another person made, when offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, is hearsay. For example, testimony that, "Trayvon said he was going to run and try and get away from the guy," can't be offered to show that Trayvon actually ran and tried to get away from the guy.

There are lots of exclusions/exceptions that might apply so that a statement might admissible hearsay - but it's still hearsay.

By the way, this: "It would be hearsay if she's repeating what T told her Z said - but she didn't hear it first hand." is double hearsay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Well not exactly. The girlfriend has reported what she heard on the phone. Since she actually overheard some of the exchange between the two, it is not just hearsay. And her statement contradicts Zimmerman's on a really key point, namely that Zimmerman was not walking back to his car when the physical confrontation began.

How is that not hearsay?

It's not hearsay because she heard it directly. It would be hearsay if she's repeating what T told her Z said - but she didn't hear it first hand. Because she heard it first hand, it's not hearsay.

This is incorrect. It is hearsay because she heard it third person. She was not physically there, she did not say it and it was not said to her. She is repeating what she heard over a cell phone with no way to corroborate whether it was being said to her or said to a person she could not see.

Mirriam-Webster Dictionary wrote:hearsay evidence noun.
evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath

Otherwise, anything that you viewed on a video or television that you watched with your own eyes would be admissible. You had to actually have been there and witnessed it. By virtue of it being heard over a cell phone, it is hearsay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:well, unfortunately, I'm guessing 90% of the robberies in that neighborhood were committed by black teens wearing hoodies. that is the unfortunate reality. so while it means nothing with respect to guilt or innocence, it was not totally unreasonable for Z to think the victim was up to no good. Right?

I can't believe what I just read. From what you are saying it follows that a straight A student with perfect behavior, high SES family, wearing a hoodie while black walking though a nice neighborhood, can reasonably be assumed to be up to no good and shot to death. I just wish that people who think like this can be more easily identified as i would not want to have any kind of friendship with such people.

My 10 year old daughter said to me "is it okay for someone to shoot a kid and say he felt threatened by the kid because he was black and wearing a hoodie? Does hat mean that black kids cannot wear hoodies? Even I know that is wrong and if the police did not arrest the man or investigate then they didn't do their job"
From the mouth of babes.

Is that what you taught your child to ask? Or if his twitter name should be "no limit n****"?Is your child also asking you if it's ok to get suspended from school for possession of stolen jewelry?

Don't be so sensational. Just teach your kids to be good people

Don't forget to add facebook posts of @ no limit n**** selling "trees" and huslting stolen jewlery, decking a bus driver

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Well not exactly. The girlfriend has reported what she heard on the phone. Since she actually overheard some of the exchange between the two, it is not just hearsay. And her statement contradicts Zimmerman's on a really key point, namely that Zimmerman was not walking back to his car when the physical confrontation began.

How is that not hearsay?

It's not hearsay because she heard it directly. It would be hearsay if she's repeating what T told her Z said - but she didn't hear it first hand. Because she heard it first hand, it's not hearsay.

This is incorrect. It is hearsay because she heard it third person. She was not physically there, she did not say it and it was not said to her. She is repeating what she heard over a cell phone with no way to corroborate whether it was being said to her or said to a person she could not see.

Mirriam-Webster Dictionary wrote:hearsay evidence noun.
evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath

Otherwise, anything that you viewed on a video or television that you watched with your own eyes would be admissible. You had to actually have been there and witnessed it. By virtue of it being heard over a cell phone, it is hearsay.

No, hearsay is repeating the observations of someone else, such as "Bob said that Alice was in the car that night". You can testify to an exchange that you heard over a phone. She can say "I heard Tayvon say X and then another voice say Y". That is not hearsay.

[Anonymous]

thanks for explaining, but why would a witness to hearing something not be able to be used as testimony? If I heard a gunshot - why can't I testify to hearing a gunshot? If I was on the phone with my boyfriend and could hear them fighting myself, why can't I testify to what I actually heard? I thought that was straight out testimony and not hearsay? you know, if I could see it, hear it, touch it, smell it than I could testify to it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lets wait for the toxicology report, maybe Zimmerman on the 911 call was right that martin was acting funny on drugs

There have been many pairs on DCUM of white, middle income to upper income posters talking of their drug use, past and present. Should we shoot and kill them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Well not exactly. The girlfriend has reported what she heard on the phone. Since she actually overheard some of the exchange between the two, it is not just hearsay. And her statement contradicts Zimmerman's on a really key point, namely that Zimmerman was not walking back to his car when the physical confrontation began.

It is precisely the definition of hearsay.

It's not hearsay if she heard it. It's not what Trayvon told her, but what she actually heard with her own ears.