Posted on 03/24/2012 6:47:49 AM PDT by tobyhill
The bottom line is that without a neutral corroborating witness or evidence, such as a video of the start of the fight, Zimmerman's statement will be regarded as self-serving...meant to lessen culpability or penalty.
See my post 132 about criminal law and self-serving statements.
No, I’m not. Are you a bigot?
Yes, and quite a difference in Zimmermans appearance today then the 7 year mugshot the media and people on FR are floating around.
Regardless of all the media and what the he said she saids, and assumptions people have made of this entire episode and the stories they’ve imagined possible, Zimmerman is being protrayed in an unfavorable light for the most part...and as much Martin the innocent victim...... With nobody here having the evidence or the facts to declare Zimmerman guilty...for something he has NOT been charged with.
It is quite telling though that he was not charged at the site of this happening...and important he is STILL not charged...and would lead me currently to think they have no evidence other than that which supports Zimmermans story.
_________________________________
Please provide links to official documents that state that, as you say, "all 8 were comitted by blacks".
2)"other articles are saying he was attacked by Martin while getting into his SUV."
______________________________________
What articles? Where? You are throwing this around a lot --- how about providing links.
3)"So a black dude scuffling around, not responding to inquiry of why was he there, and then walking up to Zimmerman to check him out only to see him on a cell phone and then jolting would definately raise fair suspicion something wasn't kosher."
______________________________________
there is so much wrong with this...Define please "scuffling around" and why you use that term.
Provide link please for your statement that Zimmerman asked Martin anything (you do understand, I'm sure, that your statement implies that Zimmerman found him and initiated contact).
Provide please link to support your statement that Martin walked up to Zimmerman.
And, finally, please explain why a teenager being followed at night by a strange man in a car and then on foot shouldn't run --- that's exactly what he should do.
btw...I really don't expect to see any genuine links to anything that you have stated in this or other posts....surprise me if you can.
I read it. That is a matter of law. What is said in this forum is not. If people want to challenge Zimmerman’s statements they should back it up.
Was Zimmerman was wearing anything that identified him as a neighborhood watchperson ... cap, vest, badge?
Did Zimmerman verbally identify himself as a watchperson?
Did Zimmerman appear to be that scary stranger that parents everywhere (black, white, purple and green) tell our children to be wary of?
My 16-year-old grandson looked at Zimmerman’s photo and remarked that he looked creepy and that he’d avoid him.
Are you seriously trying to interpret that any statement or testimony made by a person to law enforcement, in their own favor, without corroborating evidence, is inadmissable?
I've yet to see you post that law.
So any other assertions against Zimmerman boil down to people "not liking what he did", and thus calling for him to be charged with "doing something I don't like".
Sorry, America doesn't work that way.
It could take a while but you would know more about the law's take on self-serrving statements without having to rely on my reporting.
That case does not apply to this situation for a number of reasons.
___________________________________
Based on your reply I am going to assume that you did not read the SC docs on Williamson.
Please explain, in detail, why the legal consideration of a self-serving statement in criminal proceedings does not apply.
___________________________
Yes, it (the definition of a self-serving statement in a criminal proceeding and the presumption of its limited value) is a matter of law. Thank you for confirming that.
Made up laws to impose double jeopardy in spite of Constitutional prohibition.
But your under-lying notion that any teenager who is being followed by a strange adult in a car and then on foot would be smart to run is absolutely on point.
By running Martin did exactly what we teach our children to do.
The fact that his running "proves" to many freepers that he was up to no good is beyond pathetic.
Does “limited value” mean that if there is no evidence that directly contradicts Zimmerman’s statement it will stand?
Which statements of Zimmerman are you referring to?
FWIW, I don't think any of his statements would be struck as self-serving. His recorded marks before the physical altercation can't be statements of self-interest, in the meaning of the Williamson case.
You have the right to appeal any decision to the supreme court to prove your point, with your support and your millions, I guess you will have it changed in six months. But until that time, the courts have ruled that federal rights and states rights and enforcement of them is two different things.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.