17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #27

[RANCH]

Then they would say why did you feel you had to get on TV and lie about your friend or family member?

They would play the video and say well that is real funny since abc fits right in with the evidence we have and now you are saying it was not true?

I'm not sure that they would have to admit they lied on TV. It may come down to them claiming that they may have added some things that they didn't hear from GZ himself. And what would be the repercussions to them if they admitted to lying to Nancy Grace?

 

[PaintingAnemone]

Yeah, I know. But it's semantics. He was arrested and released after a decision not to charge him was made. Then there was an outcry about why he was not charged, but, IMO, the word "arrest" was used instead because an arrest is usually associated with charges.

Thus, the initial reports actually led me to believe Zimmerman was never placed in handcuffs and taken in a squad car to LE headquarters to be interrogated. It seemed that he either was allowed to just go home or went to LE headquarters voluntarily and then just left after answering some questions. That astounded me. But, he was placed in handcuffs and taken in a squad car to be interrogated. And that is an arrest for purposes of 4th amendment search and seizure laws and Miranda.

It also gives me hope that a more thorough investigation than we expected was conducted, photos were taken, etc.

But you're basing all that on the assumption that because he was wearing handcuffs that he wasn't there voluntarily. That's rather a big assumption to make, since it's quite common for police to handcuff a person without arresting him/her.
Considering he had just shot a person to death, it would have been asinine for them to not put handcuffs on him, whether he was coming along voluntarily or not, imo. Further, he did, in fact, answer some questions and go home. He was home that same night. So your initial impression that he "went to LE headquarters voluntarily and then just left after answering some questions" was actually correct. You were shocked to think so, and apparently so was everyone else; thus, the outrage.

In any case, to assert that what he experienced was an arrest when we have endless proof, statements, and justifications from the very people who dealt with him that night confirming that he was, in fact, NOT arrested, is nothing more than an academic exercise.

 

[LolaMoon08]

One of the ways to think about the hearsay rule is that is designed to extract only the reliable tesimony. A dying declaration is reliable because typically, at their death, people have no filters and/or no reason to lie. Same with admissions against interest. Since a person likely has no motivation to lie when they tell you that I committed a crime (quite the opposite), such a statement is inherently reliable.

The same can be said about each and every hearsay exception there is. There's also "catch-all" provision that creates an exception when the proferred testimony has other indicia of trustworthiness not specifically set forth in the exceptions to the exclusion. In other words, if the court finds that there is no "better evidence," hearsay can come in even if it does not fall within a specific exception, so long as it is otherwise trustworthy.

jmtc

So, I read that you are in Vegas --- and you're here at Websleuths? :floorlaugh:

Don't feel bad... I did the same thing two years ago when I was in Vegas... and last summer when I was driving around the whole State of Ohio. :floorlaugh:

 

[LolaMoon08]

I'm not sure that they would have to admit they lied on TV. It may come down to them claiming that they may have added some things that they didn't hear from GZ himself. And what would be the repercussions to them if they admitted to lying to Nancy Grace?

Well... it would ruin their credibility! That is why I posted that quote the other day. Exaggeration is akin to lying. Exaggeration is fine in movies and books and plays... to exaggerate in real life... when there really is no reason to exaggerate -- makes you an unreliable person.

 

[Karmady]

So, I read that you are in Vegas --- and you're here at Websleuths? :floorlaugh:

Don't feel bad... I did the same thing two years ago when I was in Vegas... and last summer when I was driving around the whole State of Ohio. :floorlaugh:

lol. I was just trying to be hip and cool. I'm on business and holed up in my hotel room like the life-lacking freak that I am. I did drop a dollar into a slot macine on my way to Starbucks, though :rocker:

 

[LolaMoon08]

lol. I was just trying to be hip and cool. I'm on business and holed up in my hotel room like the life-lacking freak that I am. I did drop a dollar into a slot macine on my way to Starbucks, though :rocker:

Coffee?? I would so be at the hookah bar drinking a beer on my laptop! :floorlaugh:

ETA: I don't gamble either! Ended up driving to the Grand Canyon after me and my friends got bored! Yes! We got bored in Vegas!

 

[Karmady]

But you're basing all that on the assumption that because he was wearing handcuffs that he wasn't there voluntarily. That's rather a big assumption to make, since it's quite common for police to handcuff a person without arresting him/her.
Considering he had just shot a person to death, it would have been asinine for them to not put handcuffs on him, whether he was coming along voluntarily or not, imo. Further, he did, in fact, answer some questions and go home. He was home that same night. So your initial impression that he "went to LE headquarters voluntarily and then just left after answering some questions" was actually correct. You were shocked to think so, and apparently so was everyone else; thus, the outrage.

In any case, to assert that what he experienced was an arrest when we have endless proof, statements, and justifications from the very people who dealt with him that night confirming that he was, in fact, NOT arrested, is nothing more than an academic exercise.

I wonder if its policy to cuff EVERYONE riding in the back of policy car in connection with a potential crime. I thought I'd read that here. Idk if they can even carry an un-cuffed person back there for any reason.

 

[rhornsby]

Would anything Trayvon said to his girlfriend via phone the night of the incident be allowed in court or is that hearsay?

Technically, it is all hearsay and would not be allowed in. However, I could see an argument that it should be let in to show TM's "state of mind."

 

[LolaMoon08]

I wonder if its policy to cuff EVERYONE riding in the back of policy car in connection with a potential crime. I thought I'd read that here. Idk if they can even carry an un-cuffed person back there for any reason.

YES!! People are supposed to be cuffed and with their hands in the back... not the front when they are placed in a police car. There was a case many, many years ago where this guy was cuffed in front and he got out of his handcuffs and if I am remembering right... he shot and killed some officers!

 

[Karmady]

Coffee?? I would so be at the hookah bar drinking a beer on my laptop! :floorlaugh:

ETA: I don't gamble either! Ended up driving to the Grand Canyon after me and my friends got bored! Yes! We got bored in Vegas!

It's after 6 pm. Therefore, if I can't do it my jammies, it's not worth doing lol

 

[LolaMoon08]

Technically, it is all hearsay and would not be allowed in. However, I could see an argument that it should be let in to show TM's "state of mind."

So it wouldn't fall under the whole "dying declaration" thing because he hadn't been shot yet? But it could be admitted because it shows his state of mind prior to him being killed?

 

[LolaMoon08]

It's after 6 pm. Therefore, if I can't do it my jammies, it's not worth doing lol

You could always order a yummy drink to your room? I think any business that brings you to Vegas deserves to have at least one yummy drink that makes you feel the rhythm of the pulsating nightlife of Vegas! Especially since they put all that oxygen in your room!

MOO

 

[LolaMoon08]

You know what though? I've watched the "First 48" and all those real-life shows that even if I was 100% innocent --- I want a lawyer! I wouldn't talk to LE without one? I could be 100% innocent and I am not even sure I could pass a lie detector test? I would be so nervous!

I think anyone who is brought in to be questioned by LE should have a lawyer present? But... if GZ agreed to talk to them without a lawyer... that's cool!

MOO

 

[grandmaj]

What time is the bond hearing tomorrow? Anyone????? Please and Thanks.

 

[RANCH]

Well... it would ruin their credibility! That is why I posted that quote the other day. Exaggeration is akin to lying. Exaggeration is fine in movies and books and plays... to exaggerate in real life... when there really is no reason to exaggerate -- makes you an unreliable person.

Yes, I agree that it would ruin their credibility. But what do the friends and family of GZ factually know about what happened on Feb 26th? They were not there. They did not see or hear anything that happened that night. JMO.

 

[Adrienne37]

What time is the bond hearing tomorrow? Anyone????? Please and Thanks.

9 a.m.

 

[LolaMoon08]

Yes, I agree that it would ruin their credibility. But what do the friends and family of GZ factually know about what happened on Feb 26th? They were not there. They did not see or hear anything that happened that night. JMO.

It would be the same as when Casey told her parents and Lee the revolving story of Caylee's kidnapping. Every single person Casey talked to during those 31 days and the years leading up to trial was allowed to testify as to what she said to them. It went to frame of mind... if I am not mistaken?

MOO

ETA: The only reason I am using the FCA case as reference is because I know a lot of people here followed that case and it's easier to explain since I am not a lawyer and do not know all the legalities.

 

[uvamerica]

You know what though? I've watched the "First 48" and all those real-life shows that even if I was 100% innocent --- I want a lawyer! I wouldn't talk to LE without one? I could be 100% innocent and I am not even sure I could pass a lie detector test? I would be so nervous!

I think anyone who is brought in to be questioned by LE should have a lawyer present? But... if GZ agreed to talk to them without a lawyer... that's cool!

MOO

Watching the First 48 now, good show :seeya:

 

[Karmady]

You know what though? I've watched the "First 48" and all those real-life shows that even if I was 100% innocent --- I want a lawyer! I wouldn't talk to LE without one? I could be 100% innocent and I am not even sure I could pass a lie detector test? I would be so nervous!

I think anyone who is brought in to be questioned by LE should have a lawyer present? But... if GZ agreed to talk to them without a lawyer... that's cool!

MOO

I am SURE I wouldn't pass a polygraph. If you haven't noticed, I'm one of those people for whom...ahem...nothing is just that simple. I've got to think about it until it's pulvarized into tiny little particles that defy further thought and then articulate every step in that process :blushing: I would fail for that reason, I'm sure of it. Unless...j/k

 

[gitana1]

Found this at one of the FL lawyer's sites:

There are three types of law enforcement contacts with citizens, consensual encounters, temporary detentions and arrests.

A temporary detention occurs when a law enforcement officer restrains a citizen's freedom of movement for a temporary period of time to conduct an investigation. To temporarily detain a citizen, the law enforcement officer must establish facts sufficient to prove that he or she has a reasonable suspicion to believe that the person had committed, was committing or was about to commit a crime. If the law enforcement officer determines, after conducting an investigation, That the person has not committed a crime, then the law enforcement officer must allow the person to go free. A citizen who has been temporarily detained has the right to remain silent and to not answer the law enforcement officer's questions.

(I guess I can't link to it though because it is not Hornsby site)

http://www.faulknerlegalgroup.com/FAQ/The-police-stopped-detained-me-Were-they-allowed.aspx

Temporary detention is arguably what happened with casey anthony when she was handcuffed and placed in the squad car in front of her house for a few minutes. Temporary investigative detention usually occurs at a traffic stop or the scene of a crime and even then, there are often fights in court as to whether an arrest has occurred. In the classic sense, those are arrests. Practically, they are not always treated as such.

In this case, Zimmerman was handcuffed, placed in a squad car and driven to LE headquarters, still in handcuffs, where he was taken to a room an interrogated by a detective. Guys, that is an arrest.

But it will only matter if he tries to keep certain statements out of court.

Here is the copy of the enhanced version on ABC's site. Not quit as dramatic as the one shown above but marks still showing.

Due to the elongated marks I wonder if his head was hitting the edge right where the grass and the sidewalk meet.

Also when the first video aired I thought GZ had a bald spot at the top of his head but after seeing his court video that is not the case, he doesn't have a bald spot. Was his head beaten to the point that the hair was removed or would swelling have caused the appearance of bald skin?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-case-doctor-sees-evidence-george-zimmerman/story?id=16055412

What's wrong with the police officer's ear and nose, and why does it look like a big bruise under his eye. Does it look like that in the video?

And if this is supposed to be clearer and less distorted, why does the lettering on the back of the police car seem distorted?

ETA: I don't know, I guess time will tell exactly what it is, but to me it almost looks like it's just his hair. I can also make out two faint lines on the left side of his head.

The redness to me looks similar to what we see on the police officer. Don't know the technical terms, but whatever they did to enhance it that caused redness can be seen on the officer, as well as on GZ's neck.

ETA2: Look at the police officer's head and face, he has what looks like a white line that goes all the way from the back of his head down to the bottom of his face.

JMHO

Who do you think "fiddled" with it?

When I was color editing my DD's engagement pics I tried slightly increasing the red to bring out background flowers. It made my DD and her now husband look like they were having an allergic reaction to something. Playing around with colors can definitely make it look like something is there when it's not.

The news media adjusted the light balance and color saturation just as SuziQ did. These "enhanced" photos would NEVER be admissible in court They do not show reality, as many above have posted. Just as Zimmerman no longer has an ear, the cop has swelling and red marks near his eye and Zimmerman's jacket is bleeding into the air around him near his collar and sleeves, there also appears to be a large indentation in the middle of the back of his head and a huge gash slightly to the right of that. None of that is reality.

Did Zimmerman have any injuries? Any scrapes to the back of his head? Bruising? Possibly. But nothing of evidentiary value can be gleaned by these enhanced photos.

It's not photo shopping, where they are purposefully adding something to the photo, but it can have a similar result.