|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On June 28 2013 17:05 Ansinjunger wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 16:46 Mallard86 wrote:On June 28 2013 16:35 wozzot wrote:On June 28 2013 16:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 28 2013 16:19 wozzot wrote:On June 28 2013 14:22 Millitron wrote:On June 28 2013 13:47 plogamer wrote:On June 28 2013 13:25 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Yesterday, I didn't agree that Jenteal was a total disaster. Today... yeah, she was. She has zero credibility after today. If she had simply stuck to one story, her rather unpleasant personality would have meant much less. Her demeanor and attitude and her status as a "friend" (I thought she was his girlfriend? Now she wasn't?) of Trayvon cast him in a more negative light. The likelihood of the jury thinking Trayvon was the physical aggressor who initiated the physical fight has to have gone up after being exposed to her and because of her testimony. I can't believe that the prosecution didn't at least try to lessen the blow of her quoting Trayvon with the "nigga followin' me" and "crazy-ass cracker." It undercuts the prosecution's argument that Trayvon was not hostile towards Zimmerman while Zimmerman was chomping at the bit to take Martin down.
And as Kaitlin said, the jury has to be wondering how she 'knows' what Trayvon would have done if he had intended to get into a fight with Zimmerman. The defense must be hugging themselves with glee, since the judge won't allow them to show Trayvon's texts and tweets involving weed, guns, and fights. She did their job for them.
It's been very disappointing to see some the racial arguments being advanced here. Racism is racism is racism. Whether or not racism has effected blacks more in the past or today is totally irrelevant. Saying that one person's racism or racist remarks aren't really racist or aren't as bad, because their group has been more effected by racism, is a race-bias divisive argument.
Even though the person who has been advancing it most strenuously (Magpie) undoubtedly believes in it for ideological, not racial, reasons, the effect is that people are divided by their race into categories and qualitative judgments are made based on those categories. The color of someone's skin is not a signpost as to their character and how their behavior should be judged. Would you say that about weight-class in boxing? Or would you blindly insist that weight-class difference between a feathweight versus a heavyweight is irrelevant. Boxing is boxing is boxing? Being called a 'cracker' doesn't really hurt when you have more money than Black people on average. That's why you find that these neo-racists who claim 'reverse racism' are just the underbelly of the White communities, and certain figures trying to profit from them - ala Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Fox News. Either racist language matters regardless of what race the speaker is, or it doesn't matter regardless of what race the speaker is. Anything else is a double standard. The difference is that one of these slurs is intimately associated with literal centuries of racial oppression and the other isn't jap didnt become a pejorative for japanese until world war II when americans wanted to kill them with less remorse. so, we have successfully killed this strawman you have created. next. What I meant to say is that "cracker" doesn't carry the connotation that you are a gibbering subhuman animal who should be subservient to others or be lynched. Are you unironically arguing that "cracker" is even as remotely offensive Seriously, Bill Clinton went around calling Obama voters crackers, Trayvon's usage of the term doesn't imply that much racial hostility A derogatory racial term is a derogatory racial term regardless of the connotation that the public, or you, place on the term. That statement has little value. It's like you're saying "damn" and "fuck" are both swear words. One's a little more likely to get you fired or have several heads turn your way in a public place. The same is basically true of "cracker" and "nigger." Sure, there are situations where "cracker" could be just as jarring, but those generally require context, while "nigger" requires context not to be explosive.
So which derogatory racist term may a white person use in reference to a black person which carries the same general weight in yours and, since you seem to have a pulse on the general public, the generals public's opinion as the term cracker in all its racist splendor?
|
I thought it was really inappropriate that saying white cracker is ok in the court room but not Nigger; they refer the word as the N word. Isn't that discrimination?
|
On June 28 2013 17:05 Ansinjunger wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 16:46 Mallard86 wrote:On June 28 2013 16:35 wozzot wrote:On June 28 2013 16:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 28 2013 16:19 wozzot wrote:On June 28 2013 14:22 Millitron wrote:On June 28 2013 13:47 plogamer wrote:On June 28 2013 13:25 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Yesterday, I didn't agree that Jenteal was a total disaster. Today... yeah, she was. She has zero credibility after today. If she had simply stuck to one story, her rather unpleasant personality would have meant much less. Her demeanor and attitude and her status as a "friend" (I thought she was his girlfriend? Now she wasn't?) of Trayvon cast him in a more negative light. The likelihood of the jury thinking Trayvon was the physical aggressor who initiated the physical fight has to have gone up after being exposed to her and because of her testimony. I can't believe that the prosecution didn't at least try to lessen the blow of her quoting Trayvon with the "nigga followin' me" and "crazy-ass cracker." It undercuts the prosecution's argument that Trayvon was not hostile towards Zimmerman while Zimmerman was chomping at the bit to take Martin down.
And as Kaitlin said, the jury has to be wondering how she 'knows' what Trayvon would have done if he had intended to get into a fight with Zimmerman. The defense must be hugging themselves with glee, since the judge won't allow them to show Trayvon's texts and tweets involving weed, guns, and fights. She did their job for them.
It's been very disappointing to see some the racial arguments being advanced here. Racism is racism is racism. Whether or not racism has effected blacks more in the past or today is totally irrelevant. Saying that one person's racism or racist remarks aren't really racist or aren't as bad, because their group has been more effected by racism, is a race-bias divisive argument.
Even though the person who has been advancing it most strenuously (Magpie) undoubtedly believes in it for ideological, not racial, reasons, the effect is that people are divided by their race into categories and qualitative judgments are made based on those categories. The color of someone's skin is not a signpost as to their character and how their behavior should be judged. Would you say that about weight-class in boxing? Or would you blindly insist that weight-class difference between a feathweight versus a heavyweight is irrelevant. Boxing is boxing is boxing? Being called a 'cracker' doesn't really hurt when you have more money than Black people on average. That's why you find that these neo-racists who claim 'reverse racism' are just the underbelly of the White communities, and certain figures trying to profit from them - ala Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Fox News. Either racist language matters regardless of what race the speaker is, or it doesn't matter regardless of what race the speaker is. Anything else is a double standard. The difference is that one of these slurs is intimately associated with literal centuries of racial oppression and the other isn't jap didnt become a pejorative for japanese until world war II when americans wanted to kill them with less remorse. so, we have successfully killed this strawman you have created. next. What I meant to say is that "cracker" doesn't carry the connotation that you are a gibbering subhuman animal who should be subservient to others or be lynched. Are you unironically arguing that "cracker" is even as remotely offensive Seriously, Bill Clinton went around calling Obama voters crackers, Trayvon's usage of the term doesn't imply that much racial hostility A derogatory racial term is a derogatory racial term regardless of the connotation that the public, or you, place on the term. That statement has little value. It's like you're saying "damn" and "fuck" are both swear words. One's a little more likely to get you fired or have several heads turn your way in a public place. The same is basically true of "cracker" and "nigger." Sure, there are situations where "cracker" could be just as jarring, but those generally require context, while "nigger" requires context not to be explosive.
Won't it be nice when we get to a world of true equality in at least some kind intellectual or philosophical sense where it won't matter if it's nigger or honkey or spick or all the rest, they're all equally bad.
|
Yo, how about we worry about things like poverty and education and incarceration before we crack our nuts over the "intellectual and philosophical".
|
On June 28 2013 18:38 M.R. McThundercrotch wrote:
Yo, how about we worry about things like poverty and education and incarceration before we crack our nuts over the "intellectual and philosophical".
Dunno how any of those things can be improved if we ignore philosophy and reason, but hey you got that aura of mean girls cool in your words and you really showed me what you think of what I said. Right on daddy-o.
I'll elaborate on achieving that in a broad intellectual or philosophical sense across the people. That would I hope mean significant improvement in race relations and attitudes in general. It would mean it was more likely that things like the killing of Trayvon Martin would be less likely to happen and when they did, the craziness that has happened since would be smaller and less influential. We have people here in this thread who already knew everything they needed to know about this from the moment the racial/political angles were introduced. I know I had a strong predisposition to side with Zimmerman just because self-defense and guns and a strong distaste for the racial I don't know just huge and destructive racial focus of it, which has mostly been a source of support for the Martin "side."
From the current testimony I don't know. The prosecution's most plausible story is that after Zimmerman said to Martin "What are you doing here?" he grabbed Martin (or tried to) and they went down to the ground, thus starting the fight, so his self-defense argument doesn't apply. I think once the defense has presented its case I'll be more certain again of his innocence of 2nd degree murder. If Zimmerman takes the stand it's really up to him then and no one can predict his ability to come off as believable in the courtroom in front of the jury yet.
Race seems to have something to do with the way Martin viewed Zimmerman, I'm sure it had something to do with the way Zimmerman viewed Martin, if it hadn't maybe Martin would have stopped and talked to Zimmerman maybe even yelled at each other a bit, but in the end Martin would be alive and Zimmerman wouldn't be on trial. Because it wouldn't have gotten physical so quickly. Seems reasonable but who knows, both of them could have been as colorblind as Jesus on that particular night for all we really truly know.
|
I find it hilarious that americans find nigger an ofensive word, and call african american "blacks" while in brazil "black" is an extremelly derogatory term and everyone calls them the equivalent of niggers.
|
lol, words only have the power to offend if people are sensitive about it. Most whites I know don't give a damn about being called cracker nor most blacks being called nigger, people tend to be more chill here than the US however.
Only reason I can feel people being sensitive over racial slurs is if they feel they are being oppressed for whatever reason, in the case of the US I can't really blame blacks for feeling this way due to the fact you have a minority occupying the majority of space in prisons - that's pretty bad. Saying that, I can't blame police for targeting blacks because when you have a minority committing the majority or comparable amounts of crime to the majority then not targeting the sub-group of people most likely to commit crimes would not be doing their job very efficiently.
Don't really see the reason for people getting worked up about cracker, saying that though people who claim using cracker is fine but nigger is not is nothing short of double standard.
|
On June 28 2013 17:45 Mallard86 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 17:05 Ansinjunger wrote:On June 28 2013 16:46 Mallard86 wrote:On June 28 2013 16:35 wozzot wrote:On June 28 2013 16:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 28 2013 16:19 wozzot wrote:On June 28 2013 14:22 Millitron wrote:On June 28 2013 13:47 plogamer wrote:On June 28 2013 13:25 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Yesterday, I didn't agree that Jenteal was a total disaster. Today... yeah, she was. She has zero credibility after today. If she had simply stuck to one story, her rather unpleasant personality would have meant much less. Her demeanor and attitude and her status as a "friend" (I thought she was his girlfriend? Now she wasn't?) of Trayvon cast him in a more negative light. The likelihood of the jury thinking Trayvon was the physical aggressor who initiated the physical fight has to have gone up after being exposed to her and because of her testimony. I can't believe that the prosecution didn't at least try to lessen the blow of her quoting Trayvon with the "nigga followin' me" and "crazy-ass cracker." It undercuts the prosecution's argument that Trayvon was not hostile towards Zimmerman while Zimmerman was chomping at the bit to take Martin down.
And as Kaitlin said, the jury has to be wondering how she 'knows' what Trayvon would have done if he had intended to get into a fight with Zimmerman. The defense must be hugging themselves with glee, since the judge won't allow them to show Trayvon's texts and tweets involving weed, guns, and fights. She did their job for them.
It's been very disappointing to see some the racial arguments being advanced here. Racism is racism is racism. Whether or not racism has effected blacks more in the past or today is totally irrelevant. Saying that one person's racism or racist remarks aren't really racist or aren't as bad, because their group has been more effected by racism, is a race-bias divisive argument.
Even though the person who has been advancing it most strenuously (Magpie) undoubtedly believes in it for ideological, not racial, reasons, the effect is that people are divided by their race into categories and qualitative judgments are made based on those categories. The color of someone's skin is not a signpost as to their character and how their behavior should be judged. Would you say that about weight-class in boxing? Or would you blindly insist that weight-class difference between a feathweight versus a heavyweight is irrelevant. Boxing is boxing is boxing? Being called a 'cracker' doesn't really hurt when you have more money than Black people on average. That's why you find that these neo-racists who claim 'reverse racism' are just the underbelly of the White communities, and certain figures trying to profit from them - ala Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Fox News. Either racist language matters regardless of what race the speaker is, or it doesn't matter regardless of what race the speaker is. Anything else is a double standard. The difference is that one of these slurs is intimately associated with literal centuries of racial oppression and the other isn't jap didnt become a pejorative for japanese until world war II when americans wanted to kill them with less remorse. so, we have successfully killed this strawman you have created. next. What I meant to say is that "cracker" doesn't carry the connotation that you are a gibbering subhuman animal who should be subservient to others or be lynched. Are you unironically arguing that "cracker" is even as remotely offensive Seriously, Bill Clinton went around calling Obama voters crackers, Trayvon's usage of the term doesn't imply that much racial hostility A derogatory racial term is a derogatory racial term regardless of the connotation that the public, or you, place on the term. That statement has little value. It's like you're saying "damn" and "fuck" are both swear words. One's a little more likely to get you fired or have several heads turn your way in a public place. The same is basically true of "cracker" and "nigger." Sure, there are situations where "cracker" could be just as jarring, but those generally require context, while "nigger" requires context not to be explosive. So which derogatory racist term may a white person use in reference to a black person which carries the same general weight in yours and, since you seem to have a pulse on the general public, the generals public's opinion as the term cracker in all its racist splendor?
The term you're looking for is Black or Negro depending on cultural space.
The accurate term is African American, African, or "of African Descent"
Americans don't like humanizing them so we culturally call them black instead.
|
yet another broken witness for the state. States it is 18 minutes off, but can't verify that it was actually 18. Why wouldn't they prep this crap?
|
On June 28 2013 22:09 zbedlam wrote:
lol, words only have the power to offend if people are sensitive about it. Most whites I know don't give a damn about being called cracker nor most blacks being called nigger, people tend to be more chill here than the US however.
Only reason I can feel people being sensitive over racial slurs is if they feel they are being oppressed for whatever reason, in the case of the US I can't really blame blacks for feeling this way due to the fact you have a minority occupying the majority of space in prisons - that's pretty bad. Saying that, I can't blame police for targeting blacks because when you have a minority committing the majority or comparable amounts of crime to the majority then not targeting the sub-group of people most likely to commit crimes would not be doing their job very efficiently.
Don't really see the reason for people getting worked up about cracker, saying that though people who claim using cracker is fine but nigger is not is nothing short of double standard.
As far as I know it's a strawman to create the axiom that nigger is racist and that cracker isn't.
The discussion is that both are racist terms, but cracker is given more leeway due to historical context. Much people are never derided for hating Nazi's but are derided for hating Jews, cultural and historical context shape and gives weight to words. Fuck and damn are both curse words, but one is more okay to say to your boss than the other.
The problem with people's reaction to the cracker line is their inability to understand what being racist is. Seeing a black kid walking home and then chasing after him and then shooting him saying that he looked shifty and was one of those punks looks racist because it was a kid who was walking home being labeled as a criminal. A kid who has just been chased saying to his girlfriend "some creepy ass cracker" was following him simply shows that he curses.
The accusation of racism being directed at Zimmerman is for his actions, not his language.
Now, language could reveal someone is a racist based on how it projects the subject of the speach. So, for example, when blacks call each other nigger--it's a term of endearment, a showcasing of brotherhood and sameness of struggle. Why? Because its an important word to them, something that defines them, something that brands them. You'll never hear a pair of Japanese citizens calling each other jap, nor will you have a pair of white people endearingly call each other cracker. Because those terms don't define them the way nigger defines blacks. They are merely descriptors with negative connotations linked to race. Nigger on the other hand is a cultural identity, and when people use your cultural identity as a negative marker, it's not just an attack on your skin color, it's an attack on your way of life, of your history.
Anyway, people who don't understand that some words are more colorful than others always seem to me like they're being too defensive over such trivial things.
|
why in the world is this the state's witness? It seems to go more along the defense's story... He sees martin on top. He confirms they were by the side walk. He confirms the person on top was making motions with his arms downwards multiple times, he BELIEVES the person crying for help was on the bottom.
this is weird...
|
Someone being beaten to death doesn't say help once or twice, I would say this witness is helping the state marginally so far.
|
On June 28 2013 22:50 zbedlam wrote:
Someone being beaten to death doesn't say help once or twice, I would say this witness is helping the state marginally so far.
How does this help the state? He didn't say it once or twice. He was only watching for around 10 seconds. You can hear the entire cry for helps in the 911 call. It was clearly more than 1 or two times.
He made a comment that the voice sounded different on the tape. Well its a recording vs hearing it in person. People tell me I sound like I am black when hearing my voice over the phone, but not in person. We don't sound 100% the same when being recorded. The defense will catch this I hope.
|
On June 28 2013 23:00 jeremycafe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 22:50 zbedlam wrote:
Someone being beaten to death doesn't say help once or twice, I would say this witness is helping the state marginally so far. How does this help the state? He didn't say it once or twice. He was only watching for around 10 seconds. You can hear the entire cry for helps in the 911 call. It was clearly more than 1 or two times. He made a comment that the voice sounded different on the tape. Well its a recording vs hearing it in person. People tell me I sound like I am black when hearing my voice over the phone, but not in person. We don't sound 100% the same when being recorded. The defense will catch this I hope.
If someone was on top of you beating to death, and you heard another person telling you two to break it up. Would you say "help" once or twice over the course of 10 or so seconds?
But yes nothing this witness says is proof either way, however the voices being definitely different is suggestive.
|
On June 28 2013 23:04 zbedlam wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 23:00 jeremycafe wrote:On June 28 2013 22:50 zbedlam wrote:
Someone being beaten to death doesn't say help once or twice, I would say this witness is helping the state marginally so far. How does this help the state? He didn't say it once or twice. He was only watching for around 10 seconds. You can hear the entire cry for helps in the 911 call. It was clearly more than 1 or two times. He made a comment that the voice sounded different on the tape. Well its a recording vs hearing it in person. People tell me I sound like I am black when hearing my voice over the phone, but not in person. We don't sound 100% the same when being recorded. The defense will catch this I hope. If someone was on top of you beating to death, and you heard another person telling you two to break it up. Would you say "help" once or twice over the course of 10 or so seconds? But yes nothing this witness says is proof either way, however the voices being definitely different is suggestive.
I don't understand, you don't seem to be following his testimony. The cries for help came at the end of his 10 seconds, not the beginning. He yelled out for them to stop, then the person started yelling for help. If you line the 911 call up with what he is saying, it is the same person crying for help many many times. Have you not listened to the 911 call? The person crying for help sounds pretty damn desperate to me.
|
On June 28 2013 23:06 jeremycafe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 23:04 zbedlam wrote:On June 28 2013 23:00 jeremycafe wrote:On June 28 2013 22:50 zbedlam wrote:
Someone being beaten to death doesn't say help once or twice, I would say this witness is helping the state marginally so far. How does this help the state? He didn't say it once or twice. He was only watching for around 10 seconds. You can hear the entire cry for helps in the 911 call. It was clearly more than 1 or two times. He made a comment that the voice sounded different on the tape. Well its a recording vs hearing it in person. People tell me I sound like I am black when hearing my voice over the phone, but not in person. We don't sound 100% the same when being recorded. The defense will catch this I hope. If someone was on top of you beating to death, and you heard another person telling you two to break it up. Would you say "help" once or twice over the course of 10 or so seconds? But yes nothing this witness says is proof either way, however the voices being definitely different is suggestive. I don't understand, you don't seem to be following his testimony. The cries for help came at the end of his 10 seconds, not the beginning. He yelled out for them to stop, then the person started yelling for help. If you line the 911 call up with what he is saying, it is the same person crying for help many many times. Have you not listened to the 911 call? The person crying for help sounds pretty damn desperate to me.
The 911 call is not definitely zimmerman screaming for help, in fact from what I understand they had audio experts claiming it was Trayvon but they were not allowed to testify.
Maybe I am misunderstanding this witness but from what I can see, he didn't paint a picture of the man on the bottom screaming for help over and over again.
|
On June 28 2013 23:10 zbedlam wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 23:06 jeremycafe wrote:On June 28 2013 23:04 zbedlam wrote:On June 28 2013 23:00 jeremycafe wrote:On June 28 2013 22:50 zbedlam wrote:
Someone being beaten to death doesn't say help once or twice, I would say this witness is helping the state marginally so far. How does this help the state? He didn't say it once or twice. He was only watching for around 10 seconds. You can hear the entire cry for helps in the 911 call. It was clearly more than 1 or two times. He made a comment that the voice sounded different on the tape. Well its a recording vs hearing it in person. People tell me I sound like I am black when hearing my voice over the phone, but not in person. We don't sound 100% the same when being recorded. The defense will catch this I hope. If someone was on top of you beating to death, and you heard another person telling you two to break it up. Would you say "help" once or twice over the course of 10 or so seconds? But yes nothing this witness says is proof either way, however the voices being definitely different is suggestive. I don't understand, you don't seem to be following his testimony. The cries for help came at the end of his 10 seconds, not the beginning. He yelled out for them to stop, then the person started yelling for help. If you line the 911 call up with what he is saying, it is the same person crying for help many many times. Have you not listened to the 911 call? The person crying for help sounds pretty damn desperate to me. The 911 call is not definitely zimmerman screaming for help, in fact from what I understand they had audio experts claiming it was Trayvon but they were not allowed to testify. Maybe I am misunderstanding this witness but from what I can see, he didn't paint a picture of the man on the bottom screaming for help over and over again.
He said he believes it was the person on the bottom. I think he is the most credible witness who can make a statement like that. He was actually outside, he saw the situation in person. Compared to other witness who are speculating based on what it sounded like.
Audio experts were not allowed to testify because the defense were able to find just as many "experts" willing to say it was impossible to use that audio. The paid experts for the state were denied. To even bring it up now is unfair as it creates false testimony to whos voice it is. Hopefully the defense can bring the father up and question him about saying it was not his son multiple times. That is far more damming that audio experts.
My point is, this witness has done wonders for the defense. I am blown away the state would use him. It just goes to show how little they actually have.
edit: sorry I was using caps in place of bold. caps is annoying. not trying to sound like a dick
|
On June 28 2013 23:10 zbedlam wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 23:06 jeremycafe wrote:On June 28 2013 23:04 zbedlam wrote:On June 28 2013 23:00 jeremycafe wrote:On June 28 2013 22:50 zbedlam wrote:
Someone being beaten to death doesn't say help once or twice, I would say this witness is helping the state marginally so far. How does this help the state? He didn't say it once or twice. He was only watching for around 10 seconds. You can hear the entire cry for helps in the 911 call. It was clearly more than 1 or two times. He made a comment that the voice sounded different on the tape. Well its a recording vs hearing it in person. People tell me I sound like I am black when hearing my voice over the phone, but not in person. We don't sound 100% the same when being recorded. The defense will catch this I hope. If someone was on top of you beating to death, and you heard another person telling you two to break it up. Would you say "help" once or twice over the course of 10 or so seconds? But yes nothing this witness says is proof either way, however the voices being definitely different is suggestive. I don't understand, you don't seem to be following his testimony. The cries for help came at the end of his 10 seconds, not the beginning. He yelled out for them to stop, then the person started yelling for help. If you line the 911 call up with what he is saying, it is the same person crying for help many many times. Have you not listened to the 911 call? The person crying for help sounds pretty damn desperate to me. The 911 call is not definitely zimmerman screaming for help, in fact from what I understand they had audio experts claiming it was Trayvon but they were not allowed to testify. Maybe I am misunderstanding this witness but from what I can see, he didn't paint a picture of the man on the bottom screaming for help over and over again.
Most audio experts say it's impossible to know who was screaming. The ones that say otherwise were using methods not used by most of the scientific community. Which is why it wasn't allowed.
|
On June 28 2013 23:14 jeremycafe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 23:10 zbedlam wrote:On June 28 2013 23:06 jeremycafe wrote:On June 28 2013 23:04 zbedlam wrote:On June 28 2013 23:00 jeremycafe wrote:On June 28 2013 22:50 zbedlam wrote:
Someone being beaten to death doesn't say help once or twice, I would say this witness is helping the state marginally so far. How does this help the state? He didn't say it once or twice. He was only watching for around 10 seconds. You can hear the entire cry for helps in the 911 call. It was clearly more than 1 or two times. He made a comment that the voice sounded different on the tape. Well its a recording vs hearing it in person. People tell me I sound like I am black when hearing my voice over the phone, but not in person. We don't sound 100% the same when being recorded. The defense will catch this I hope. If someone was on top of you beating to death, and you heard another person telling you two to break it up. Would you say "help" once or twice over the course of 10 or so seconds? But yes nothing this witness says is proof either way, however the voices being definitely different is suggestive. I don't understand, you don't seem to be following his testimony. The cries for help came at the end of his 10 seconds, not the beginning. He yelled out for them to stop, then the person started yelling for help. If you line the 911 call up with what he is saying, it is the same person crying for help many many times. Have you not listened to the 911 call? The person crying for help sounds pretty damn desperate to me. The 911 call is not definitely zimmerman screaming for help, in fact from what I understand they had audio experts claiming it was Trayvon but they were not allowed to testify. Maybe I am misunderstanding this witness but from what I can see, he didn't paint a picture of the man on the bottom screaming for help over and over again. He said he believes it was the person on the bottom. I think he is the most credible WITNESS who can make a statement like that. He was actually outside, he SAW the situation in person. Compared to other witness who are speculating based on what it sounded like. Audio experts were not allowed to testify because the defense were able to find just as many "experts" willing to say it was impossible to use that audio. The paid experts for the state were denied. To even bring it up now is unfair as it creates false testimony to whos voice it is. Hopefully the defense can bring the father up and question him about saying it was NOT his son multiple times. That is far more damming that audio experts. My point is, this witness has done wonders for the defense. I am blown away the state would use him. It just goes to show how little they actually have.
Oh I agree, this witness is helping the defense more than the state. And I know why the experts were not allowed to testify, but there is so far nothing indicating that the person screaming for help during the 911 call was Zimmerman.
This witness clearly paints a picture of Trayvon beating Zimmerman up, but has not painted a picture of Zimmerman having his life in danger.
|
He does say he heard the person on the bottom crying for help. If you pair that with the evidence of the 911 tape, it sure does sound like someone's life was in danger. The cries for help is chilling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
