It's Watch!... Neighborhood Watch. Not shoot.

Good point. Seeing as he lives in a gated community, I guess he's an above-average Joe.

 

A girl who overheard part of an incident involving Florida teenager Trayvon Martin can help prove he was killed "in cold blood," an attorney for Martin's family said Tuesday.

The girl, who was dating the 17-year-old, "completely blows (George) Zimmerman's absurd self-defense claim out of the water," Benjamin Crump said at a news conference.


www.cnn.com/2012/03/20/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

Won't that be hearsay?

 

I would think they can corroborate what she was hearing at certain points with what others were hearing. There's also Zimmerman's 911 call, so there's a record of events to which she can testify.

 

Yes but one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule, at least in Cal., is if the witness is unavailable and um killing the witness would fit the exception.

 

Indeed.

 

Interesting this study is released while this incident is a hot topic.

http://newsinfo.nd.edu/news/29684-holding-a-gun-makes-you-think-others-are-too-new-research-shows/

 

That's not how hearsay rules work. See, for example, California Evidence Code Section 1350(a)(3) (requiring the testimony of an unavailable witness to be memorialized by the declarant by tape recording or signed statement).

Her testimony will probably come in not because it fits into a hearsay exception, but rather because it is not hearsay at all. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement repeated in court FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER. Nothing that Trayvon said will be offered to prove that what he said was true. It will be used to prove that Zimmerman was on notice (aware) that Trayvon posed no threat.

If the statement goes to notice or intent, it's not hearsay. As long as you don't use the statement to try to prove what was in the statement ("He said he just had Skittles" can't be used to prove he actually just had Skittles), the statement comes in. You can use it, however, to prove that Zimmerman had reason to not be scared of Trayvon. I know that might sound like we're splitting hairs, but my point is that almost anything Trayvon said will come in as non-hearsay.

Anything that Zimmerman said comes in under the party-opponent exception, and that CAN be used to prove the truth of the matter.

 

In what way is he not?

 

From what I have read, the most suspicious thing the cops did was "correct" witnesses who said they heard the kid pleading/screaming, insisting to them they were hearing the "threatened": shooter.
Up to that point, I could buy the old "this is terrible but Fla. law allows just about anything if he felt threatened" rationale. It really seems like Zimmerman got very sympathetic treatment from the police.
This is becoming a watershed event, with a national profile. Be interesting to see how it plays out. Glad the Sanford PD response isn't going to be the final word.

 

He's fucking insane, for one.

 

Clearly not. He had a licensed firearm.