(Trayvon) Martin Spoke of ‘Crazy and Creepy’ Man Following Him, Friend Says
Source: NY Times
A girl who talked on the phone with Trayvon Martin on the night of Feb. 26 has told a state prosecutor that she heard rising fear in Mr. Martins voice that peaked with words like get off, get off, right before she lost contact with him and he was shot to death.
In the sworn interview recorded on April 2, which runs more than 22 minutes, the unidentified 16-year-old said Mr. Martin described a man who was crazy and creepy and on the phone, watching him from a vehicle before he started to follow him on foot.
The girl implored Mr. Martin, 17, who said he put his sweatshirt hood up because of the rain, to run to the town house where he was staying with his father, his fathers girlfriend and her 14-year-old son.
I could hear the wind blowing and he said he lost him, said the girl, who is from Miami and who said she had known Mr. Martin since kindergarten. She has not been identified because she is a minor and a witness in the case.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/us/trayvon-martins-friend-tells-what-she-heard-on-phone.html
Article includes audio of the interview.
FailureToCommunicate
(14,014 posts)Suji to Seoul
(2,035 posts)And when Zimmy started to lose (face), he pulled out his gun and shot the kid.
2nd degree murder is the correct crime here! Convict his ass. He killed an unarmed kid (allegedly).
intheflow
(28,481 posts)No one disputes that Zimmerman shot the kid. Treyvon is dead by George Zimmerman's gun, and even Zimmerman admits he shot him. The arguments are over Zimmerman's motivation and intensions.
Suji to Seoul
(2,035 posts)operator.
no, decided to be vigilante with a hard on.
The right wing believes two things about courts:
1) the courts are to decide innocence or guilty. Zimmy admits killing him. That sounds like guilt to me.
2) there are no mitigating circumstances, only aggravating ones.
Ship his racist ass to prison.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)What will matter in the trial, if there is one, is what each party DID.
Suji to Seoul
(2,035 posts)and perfect. if they shoot someone, they have the power of the government to prove it was justified and an acceptable use of force.
where zimmy will get away with it is in the fact his victim is black and a boy.
everything else is irrelevant, even my previous statements.
Response to slackmaster (Reply #16)
Post removed
intheflow
(28,481 posts)Your post said Zimmerman was alleged to have shot Martin. I responded there was no allegation about it. He's guilty of shooting martin, all agree. What's not agreed upon by some is Zimmerman's rights to shoot the kid down. Geesh. I'm on your side. Reading comprehension is a beautiful thing.
Suji to Seoul
(2,035 posts)the prick is guilty as sin.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)although if she can only testify that she heard Martin use "words LIKE 'get off, get off'", then the defense will emphasize that she admits that she doesn't know if Martin actually said "get off."
Nine
(1,741 posts)This is the current tactic I see. "Oh I personally think Zimmerman is guilty but, oh dear, this isn't very good for the prosecution's case, and the defense will unfortunately be able to argue this..."
Vattel
(9,289 posts)relayerbob
(6,545 posts)Martin "stood his ground" when being stalked by an unknown vigilante assailant who was ignoring the orders of the police. The assailant then shot him by his own admission. Second degree murder at best.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)And by the way, the police did not order Zimmerman to do anything.
OnlinePoker
(5,723 posts)Or is that allowed in murder cases?
antigone382
(3,682 posts)1.She was an actual witness (albeit via phone) to the events as they occurred.
2. The person she is quoting is dead, meaning there is no way to know what he said or thought other than relying on hearsay.
I also believe that anything she alleges Zimmerman said will be admissible as well, because as I recall there is no hearsay rule for statements made by the defendant, but I could be wrong about that.
Technically, I could be wrong about any of it; most of my "legal knowledge" in cases like these came from a year of doing mock trial in high school over ten years ago. As I recall these were pretty basic and well-established rules, but I defer to those who know more than me.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)whether he said "get off" doesn't seem to me to matter.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)Trayvon "stood his ground" BUT had no gun, and can't speak for himself.
yardwork
(61,670 posts)It doesn't matter if Zimmerman had a few scrapes and cuts. He shot and killed somebody. Any reasonable person would expect his victim to have tried to defend himself. Zimmerman was the one with the gun. His defenders want us to believe that Zimmerman was in fear of his life. The man with the gun?
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Not the other way around, no matter what Zimmerman claims. His "injuries" are suspicious to me.
nenagh
(1,925 posts)taken at the crime scene..
Zimmerman looked crazy and creepy that night in the rain...
Cass
(2,600 posts)physically confronted him. I still think it was Trayvon who had the right to invoke the SYG law.
Zimmerman should have followed the instructions from the police dispatcher to back off, but he chose not to.
Did Zimmerman "physically" confront or just ask a question such as, "who are you and what are you doing here?" Maybe Trayvon began the physical confrontation. If so, what might that mean for the case?
trumad
(41,692 posts)They will nail that time down perfectly.
This is damning evidence.
A Brand New World
(1,119 posts)Why did the Dad have to play investigator & discover the call much later when he was looking at the bill? What a poor job of investigating this police department has done! I know you don't know the answer to these questions. Just commenting.
relayerbob
(6,545 posts)The fact that it is coming out now doesn't mean they haven't known this for some time.
Nay
(12,051 posts)if not to recover phone calls like this? Is there no way to recover the actual phone call and listen to it?
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)The girl will testify about what Trayvon said. However, her account of what T. said is second hand, and thus may be subject, at least in part to the hearsay rule.
If the hearsay rule applies, then the testimony will not be heard by the jurors, unless is falls into an exception, like "excited utterances".
Any currently practicing trial lawyers around to clarify this?
I don't practice any more and my memory may not be sharp on these points.
antigone382
(3,682 posts)Also, if she actually heard the encounter leading up to the shooting, she is technically a witness to the events, and I would imagine her testimony would be critical.
FedUpWithIt All
(4,442 posts)BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)heartbreaking