Black Defendants’ “Stand Your Ground” Claims Against White Assailants Are Rarely Accepted

[0311]

According to Martin's girlfriend Martin WAS the aggressor. He told her he was going to "get that cracker". She testified to that in court.
It's not legal for a student to carry a knife on school grounds in Texas and Anthony either was, or had just been, suspended for carrying a knife at his home school.

If all you ever have is hearsay, you've already lost. Unless what that hearsay can backed up with witness to what said it means nothing.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Let’s get real about Stand your Ground

If you are confronted by a black, you rightfully fear for your life and can kill him.

An armed black surrounded by whites has no reason to be afraid and is guilty of murder if he shoots

Wrong.

If all you ever have is hearsay, you've already lost. Unless what that hearsay can backed up with witness to what said it means nothing.

It wasn't hearsay, Martin told it to her over the phone at the time. That's direct testimony. Hearsay would be if the girlfriend stated that someone else had told her that Martin had made the statement.

 

[0311]

Wrong.

It wasn't hearsay, Martin told it to her over the phone at the time. That's direct testimony. Hearsay would be if the girlfriend stated that someone else had told her that Martin had made the statement.

It wasn't hearsay, Martin told it to her over the phone at the time. That is most definitely hearsay, telephonic communications are hearsay. Talking to someone phone, telling them something that cannot verified is the very nature of hearsay. You are reaching and it shows. There no direct testimony. How can there be testimony direct or otherwise when only ONE party says something happened.

 

[IM2]

No its state law, and knives are not protected by the Second Amendment.

Its still school property. I have personal experience...

This is all good, but this fact still applies:

THE METCALFS DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ASK ANTHONY TO LEAVE OR TO REMOVE ANTHONY FROM THE TENT!

 

[IM2]

It wasn't hearsay, Martin told it to her over the phone at the time. That is most definitely say, telephonic communication are hearsay. Talking to someone phone, telling them something that cannot verified is the very nature of hearsay. You are reaching and it shows. There no direct testimony. How can there be testimony direct or otherwise when only ONE party says something happened.

These guys still want to believe what they want about Martin, but what they will never bring up is the fact that the police dispatcher told Zimmerman not to pursue Martin, and he did.

 

[Lisa558]

The question then becomes, why did the defense attorney go along with striking all the black potential jurors?

The defense doesn’t have to agree. The prosecutor can choose who he wants to strike, and so can the defense, each without the concurrence of the other.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If all you ever have is hearsay, you've already lost. Unless what that hearsay can backed up with witness to what said it means nothing.

If all you ever have is hearsay, you've already lost.

She testified as to what she said to him and as to what he said to her. That's not hearsay you moron.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It wasn't hearsay, Martin told it to her over the phone at the time. That is most definitely hearsay, telephonic communications are hearsay. Talking to someone phone, telling them something that cannot verified is the very nature of hearsay. You are reaching and it shows. There no direct testimony. How can there be testimony direct or otherwise when only ONE party says something happened.

Talking to someone phone, telling them something that cannot verified is the very nature of hearsay.

In court, hearsay is an out-of-court statement (spoken, written, or recorded) that is repeated by a witness and offered as evidence to prove the truth of what was said. Because the person who originally made the statement cannot be cross-examined, hearsay is generally considered unreliable and is usually not allowed in court.

Why is it not allowed?

The legal system relies on the ability to cross-examine a witness to test their memory, perception, and honesty. If a witness says, "My neighbor Bob told me the light was red," the court cannot question Bob directly to verify his version of events. [1, 2, 3]

How can there be testimony direct or otherwise when only ONE party says something happened.

She testified about what she said and about what she heard. She can be questioned by both lawyers.

 

[talksalot]

I dont think its that simple. I believe the real truth is somewhere in between. I'm sure Anthony intended to hurt Metcalf badly and it was completely unjustified.... but I dont really see any evidence of him planning from the start to kill someone. There is evidence he was trash talking the other team but IMO, when things escalated he allowed his pride and possibly something else to make him double down. At some point I think he decided to use the knife , it wasnt just a last second thing but I think he was living some gangster fantasy, based on what we saw in his online photos.

You can't justify this murder.
From bringing the knife, to trespassing, to provoking the other kid.....he could have stopped at any time.
Was his culture partly to blame? Maybe, but these were his decisions and his alone.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is all good, but this fact still applies:

THE METCALFS DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ASK ANTHONY TO LEAVE OR TO REMOVE ANTHONY FROM THE TENT!

And Anthony didn't have the authority to stab or kill anyone.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

These guys still want to believe what they want about Martin, but what they will never bring up is the fact that the police dispatcher told Zimmerman not to pursue Martin, and he did.

Who cares what the dispatcher said? Treyvon attacked Zimmermann and paid for his crime.

 

[Yarddog]

Your racist opinion is inaccurate since Metcalf walked into the tent and initiated the situation. The evidence you are taking but doesn't exist, and Metcalf did not have the authority to tell anyone to leave. Your assumption is a racist assumption that does not meet the facts. Anthony was an honor student with a 3.7 GPA who had never been in trouble. Th reality you racists don't want to face is that it was Metcalf who had the racist fantasy of beating up some black person. You racists lecture us about getting violent over words but here it's fine for a white person e to initiate violence over words.

Then you wonder why you get called a racist.

Drop the white victimhood, you racist pos, Metcalf started a fight, the kid was defending himself. This is going to come out in th appeal.

Nothing Im saying is racist. Witness testimony said Karmelo sat down and started trash talking other students. What do you think happens when kids do that in other kids space? But no from the very begining metcalf was called a racist... only evidence being that Karmelo is black and Metcalf is white.
Actual court evidence and student witnesses say, Karmelo brought attention to himself by taunting.
So because I have the opinion.. Karmelo was trying to act tough... and I base that on witness testimony... him throwing a Gang Sign on face book...
You call me a racist piece of shit. I'm only using actual deduction. The other big piece of evidence that one boy got stabbed in the heart. yes its true metcalf had no authority to tell anyone to leave.. but this is what kids do when their space is encroached on. right or wrong it does it deserve getting stabbed.
You base your opinion on what?? Metcalf was white and Anthony was black.. that is not evidence of motive whatsoever. half of the Kids on Metcalf's Schools track team are black... so you want to push this narative that Metcalf saw a black kid sit down and decided he was going to impose racism...

Personally, I think I can agree with those who say Anthony got too much time, the jury did decide very quickly and I could have seen them taking more time anyways. again its just my opinion, but I think Anthony was being also stupid and did not consider the real consequences of stabbing someone in the chest... HE however never took the stand in his own defense so some of what happened in the trial is on his legal team.

 

[Yarddog]

You can't justify this murder.
From bringing the knife, to trespassing, to provoking the other kid.....he could have stopped at any time.
Was his culture partly to blame? Maybe, but these were his decisions and his alone.

Anthony never took the stand, so there was never the chance to judge him by his words or demeanor. Now all we have is witness testimony, but that testimony lends to Karmelo provoking other students yes.
Did Metcalf behave perfectly?? no, he probably acted like a testosterone filled jock... but that should not have been a death sentence. IMO.. he was more standing up for his school.. his team by what he saw as an outsider.
Otehrs here just want to make it about race and race alone because that is one of the main themes on this website.. so it colors everything that is said.

I dont justify Anthony's action but when it comes to motivations I still think there may be some unknown and room for conjecture. So we will leave it up to the appeals process and if Anthony then takes the stand maybe he can speak for himself.

 

[AZrailwhale]

These guys still want to believe what they want about Martin, but what they will never bring up is the fact that the police dispatcher told Zimmerman not to pursue Martin, and he did.

The dispatcher was a civilian who ADVISED Zimmerman not to shadow Martin. The dispatcher had no authority to order another civilian to do anything.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Nothing Im saying is racist. Witness testimony said Karmelo sat down and started trash talking other students. What do you think happens when kids do that in other kids space? But no from the very begining metcalf was called a racist... only evidence being that Karmelo is black and Metcalf is white.
Actual court evidence and student witnesses say, Karmelo brought attention to himself by taunting.
So because I have the opinion.. Karmelo was trying to act tough... and I base that on witness testimony... him throwing a Gang Sign on face book...
You call me a racist piece of shit. I'm only using actual deduction. The other big piece of evidence that one boy got stabbed in the heart. yes its true metcalf had no authority to tell anyone to leave.. but this is what kids do when their space is encroached on. right or wrong it does it deserve getting stabbed.
You base your opinion on what?? Metcalf was white and Anthony was black.. that is not evidence of motive whatsoever. half of the Kids on Metcalf's Schools track team are black... so you want to push this narative that Metcalf saw a black kid sit down and decided he was going to impose racism...

Personally, I think I can agree with those who say Anthony got too much time, the jury did decide very quickly and I could have seen them taking more time anyways. again its just my opinion, but I think Anthony was being also stupid and did not consider the real consequences of stabbing someone in the chest... HE however never took the stand in his own defense so some of what happened in the trial is on his legal team.

The jury was out for such a short time because there is no doubt about events. Even the defense witnesses stated that Anthony created the confrontation and was the aggressor right up until he knifed Metcalf without warning. Self-defense couldn’t be considered because without Anthony testifying, his state of mind can’t be established.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Anthony never took the stand, so there was never the chance to judge him by his words or demeanor. Now all we have is witness testimony, but that testimony lends to Karmelo provoking other students yes.
Did Metcalf behave perfectly?? no, he probably acted like a testosterone filled jock... but that should not have been a death sentence. IMO.. he was more standing up for his school.. his team by what he saw as an outsider.
Otehrs here just want to make it about race and race alone because that is one of the main themes on this website.. so it colors everything that is said.

I dont justify Anthony's action but when it comes to motivations I still think there may be some unknown and room for conjecture. So we will leave it up to the appeals process and if Anthony then takes the stand maybe he can speak for himself.

Anthony can’t take the stand in an appeal action. No new evidence or testimony can be considered. Only the actions taken by the lawyers and judge can be considered. The only way Anthony can ever testify is if the verdict is overturned and a new trial convened. I can’t see Anthony testifying then because it opens him up for cross examination about every statement and action.

 

[Yarddog]

The jury was out for such a short time because there is no doubt about events. Even the defense witnesses stated that Anthony created the confrontation and was the aggressor right up until he knifed Metcalf without warning. Self-defense couldn’t be considered because without Anthony testifying, his state of mind can’t be established.

Oh right, even defense witnesses testified that Karmelo was agressive... you know you'll be called a racist for that. Stop throwing out facts!

 

[JGalt]

I dont think its that simple. I believe the real truth is somewhere in between. I'm sure Anthony intended to hurt Metcalf badly and it was completely unjustified.... but I dont really see any evidence of him planning from the start to kill someone. There is evidence he was trash talking the other team but IMO, when things escalated he allowed his pride and possibly something else to make him double down. At some point I think he decided to use the knife , it wasnt just a last second thing but I think he was living some gangster fantasy, based on what we saw in his online photos.

Black murderers seldom premeditate their crimes.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The defense doesn’t have to agree. The prosecutor can choose who he wants to strike, and so can the defense, each without the concurrence of the other.

Each side has a very limited number of peremptory challenges, then they have to justify each one and the other side can object.