Joel Was Right
Member
Can someone describe what is happening
Can someone describe what is happening
God, I love it when the defense reads her quotes verbatim.
Like "Why are you following me for".God, I love it when the defense reads her quotes verbatim.
I don't think it does them any favors though. She looks embarrassed and he seems like a jerk.
just looking out for my neighborhood
Oh, it's a total dick move. Especially when he slows down the delivery to emphasize her shitty grammar. But I think it's an interesting rhetorical technique that, along with her demeanor on the stand, depicts her as being dumb and unreliable.
edit: I also think it's brilliant how he has her read because it makes it seem like she's illiterate.
The judge demanding the defense finishes one question before asking the next is a good sign at least.
Until she has to say the same thing to the witness.
She seems to have a pretty shitty attitude and I'm surprised the judge hasn't held her in contempt at this point.
This girl needs to drop the attitude...
Why though? I think if she all of a sudden starts acting very courteous she'll come off as phony.
Please tell me someone giffed that head shake
I feel pretty bad for the girl. She doesn't seem like she's all that awesome of a person, but she's being raked across the coals by the internet. I don't think being questioned for hours on end while having your every... idiosyncrasy used against you is an easy thing.
When I think about her two lies (about her age, and about why she skipped the wake - only one of which was under oath if I remember correctly) it just kind of adds into this image of someone who is not ready, wanting or able to be on the stand. And as much as it might be relevant (I don't know if it is, but it doesn't feel like it is to me) using those two lies for character assassination, along with her dumb-teen tweets, feels wrong to me.
Oh, it's a total dick move. Especially when he slows down the delivery to emphasize her shitty grammar. But I think it's an interesting rhetorical technique that, along with her demeanor on the stand, depicts her as being dumb and unreliable.
edit: I also think it's brilliant how he has her read because it makes it seem like she's illiterate.
I'd have to hear it again, but I'm pretty sure she said "coulda" then corrected it to "could". I agree with the prosecutor that this shouldn't be entered in as evidence.
It's a deposition, it's already there as evidence. Right?
Please stay out of my neighborhood. If I had kids, you'd be a threat to them.
I'd have to hear it again, but I'm pretty sure she said "coulda" then corrected it to "could". I agree with the prosecutor that this shouldn't be entered in as evidence.
So following someone represents a threat to you? Seeing where a suspicious person goes is dangerous?
If this happened to your family and you knew the outcome could have been different because a followed suspicious people, you would be fine?
So following someone represents a threat to you? Seeing where a suspicious person goes is dangerous?
It sounded like couldn't to me.
Because it IS wrong. It has nothing to do with the relevant details of the case. The point is to attack her character, and, by association, Trayvon's by basically mocking her intelligence and taking advantage of a cultural gap.
Vigilantism is dangerous, following around people you suspect is absolutely unnecessary - call the cops and they'll be there in two minutes.
So following someone represents a threat to you? Seeing where a suspicious person goes is dangerous?
If this happened to your family and you knew the outcome could have been different because a person followed suspicious people, you would be fine?
So following someone represents a threat to you? Seeing where a suspicious person goes is dangerous?
If this happened to your family and you knew the outcome could have been different because a person followed suspicious people, you would be fine?