Posted on 03/27/2012 5:32:25 AM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the neighborhood watch volunteer who eventually shot to death the unarmed 17-year-old, then climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk several times, leaving him bloody and battered, authorities told The Orlando Sentinel.
That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities said.
(Excerpt) Read more at articles.orlandosentinel.com ...
Hellfire, that's exactly what got us Obama.
Then damnit fool, post a link to what you are claiming........If you can't do that then you're no better than the other ignorant hangmen around here.
You know darn well folks around here demand "links" and the fact that you neglected to provide any indicates that you are just fabricating false information in order to support your useless argument that Zimmerman should be hanged......
They can be written documents, such as a letter stating something like..."You know I wasn't there...". Such a statement in a letter (or email) is worthless as proof of anything without the person to whom it was addressed acknowledging that it is a true statement. The same is true of un-corroborated statements to LE.
Self-serving statements are any self-exculpatory statements that lack neutral corroborating evidence or eyewitness testimony. Zimmerman's statement to Sanford PD meets this definition.
I provided one of many decisions that are out there to be found.
wtc911, we have nothing to rebut because all the cases you have cited deal with hearsay. An exculpatory statement to law enforcement by a declarant, whether contemporaneous or after Miranda waiver, is not the same as a third-party recitation of another's statement out of court, nor is it the same as a completely non-relevant self-serving statement such as "you know I wasn't there" during a jailhouse telephone call with one's attorney.
You have posted neither caselaw nor Rule that makes exculpatory statements to law enforcment, by a decalarant, inadmissable or of diminished value at trial.
Indeed, under Brady v. Maryland, the prosecution must provide all exculpatory evidence, including statements made to police) to the defense prior to trial. Is this merely so that such evidence can be suppressed at trial?
I think not.
Most people, if they'd like a link, they ask for one. Civilly.
It's in the third paragraph.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/03/19/US-to-investigate-killing-of-Fla-teen/UPI-85941332170292/
I think I'm going to need an interpreter...LOL
You are out of your Frackin mind, where did you get that information????
If Martin had run away then there would have been a gunshot wound to the back, yes?
Unfortunately for your idiotic claim, there is no such wound to the back, instead, there is a George Zimmerman with a busted nose, contusions to the back of his head and grass stains on the back of his sweatshirt and a witness stating on record that he saw Trayvon Martin on top of Mr. Zimmerman, beating on him.........
Holy crap, I think there's a "stupid" virus running rampant thru this site........
What orifice are you pulling this crap out of?
You seem to be claiming that Martin KNEW Z was armed, and then that he had his pistol in hand?
A bit early to hit the bong, isn't it?
Yes, and have you listened to the witness' testimony? I know you have but yet you keep up your useless arguments..........
Actually we do, it was when Martin was on top of him...........the real question is, how close was Martin to Zimmerman's face?
A thought problem: If Martin had not died, would his statements have been admissible without corroboration?
Are you saying that witness cannot be a witness if he was a participant?
Wow. And to think all the trials I have seen called the participants as the main witnesses, many of whom denied any wrongdoing.
Then someone says, “Yes you did, you’re just trying to get out of trouble now.”
Then the witness can introduce the statements to the police made at the time of the incident to rebut the allegation that he is just making it up to get out of it.
If Martin was here, he may say, Zimmerman assaulted me, but would that be a self-serving statement?
On that point I can agree with you, but your posts are putting forward that impression.
I've looked for transcripts showing the times but they aren't there YET.
But the legal question is still - who started the fight?
You just negated your prior argument. The question that will be asked in court is who was fighting for their life and why didn't Martin leave the scene after he had knocked Zimmerman to the ground...but more importantly, why did Martin approach Zimmerman at all after Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle.
Additional info: Twitter feed shows Treyvons picture and includes tweets wishing him a happy birthday.
“So, you should just accept it.”
I guess muawiyah believes that if a woman is being raped, she should lay back and enjoy it. His/her “reasoning” is scary.
Actually it doesn't. One court decision does not offer blanket coverage. Each case is different and in this one, Zimmerman will ultimately be found not guilty despite the crap you keep posting.......
wtc911 has been told by several posters that the cases he's citing aren't applicable at all, to non-hearsay testimony. And Zimmerman's testimony and statements aren't hearsay. He was there. Eyewitnesses or not, he may testify. There is no need for independent eyewitness corroboration - although independent eyewitness evidence is VERY VERY helpful in this case.
Of course, one is always free to challenge the credibility of testimony, even non-hearsay testimony.
“With your logic, policeman killed in the line of duty, “PROVOKED the confrontation”, hence they deserved what they got.”
BS! George Zimmerman is not a policeman, that’s the point. Also, Trayvon Martin wasn’t committing any crime. He was minding his own business while walking home from a mini-mart with a bag of skittles and a bottle of tea.
No disputing that, the question now is, why didn't Martin break off contact and retreat? He didn't and he was subsequently viewed by the witness (according to his documented statement) as being on top of Zimmerman beating on him and attempting to slam his head onto the cement pavement........
Since Martin chose not to break off contact and retreat, he became the aggressor and an immediate threat to Mr. Zimmerman's life...........
I heard George Zimmerman had a bag of Starburst and a bottle of Snapple in his truck.
Clearly, Zimmerman is innocent.
____________________________________
No, I am saying that without any neutral corroboration Zimmerman's statement is self-serving and as such his statement may be ruled to be inadmissable.
And then I posted US Appeals court decision that support my statement.
Somebody (it may have been you) took the exact same line on another thread the other day, and was absolutely crushed by someone that knew the law.
The fact is that the last thing before the fight that we "know" Martin did was run away.
Note the word 'before the fight'...not during the fight.
The last information that we have about martin's actions before the 911 calls reporting the fight is from zimmerman's recorded call. In that call the last thing that zimmerman said about martin is..."he ran away."
If you have any other factual information about martin's actions before the fight please post a link to it.
How about you provide detail explaining why you think I'm wrong, and support your position with case law...
The last information that we have about martin’s actions before the 911 calls reporting the fight is from zimmerman’s recorded call. In that call the last thing that zimmerman said about martin is...”he ran away.”
The last thing Zimmerman said about Martin is “I don’t know where this kid is” meaning he had lost him. So much for Zimmerman initiating a confrontation.
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html
_____________________________________
When you want to talk about what I actually wrote then hit me up. I don't have any interest in defending things I never wrote.
That guy 101stAirborne (can’t remember his exact name) rebutted you with plenty of details (if that was in fact you). You were absolutely owned.
___________________________________
Oh, I don't know...maybe he saw Zimmerman's gun and didn't feel safe to disengage. Maybe the gun was already in Zimmerman's hand. Do you know where the gun was or when/if Martin first saw it?
And, as long as you asked me to speculate...
Maybe he did disengage and was backing off when zimmerman pulled the gun and shot.
The point is that nobody saw the moment that Zimmerman pulled the trigger (at least none of the released statements indicate a witness to that moment). The "big news" of the day was the witness John. But he didn't see the start of the fight, didn't say he saw the gun and was no longer watching the action when the gun was fired.
How far away was Martin from the muzzle? Is there forensic evidence that says two inches or ten inches or two feet or five feet? I haven't seen any.
-------------------------------------------
I wrote that the last thing we know of martin's ACTIONS is that he ran away.
And, since the moment when the two found themselves face to face was unrecorded and, as far as we know, unwitnessed, nobody can say with any certainty (speculation but not certainty) who initiated the confrontation.
In that call the last thing that zimmerman said about martin is...”he ran away.
That is what you said.
And, since the moment when the two found themselves face to face was unrecorded and, as far as we know, unwitnessed, nobody can say with any certainty (speculation but not certainty) who initiated the confrontation.
You are missing the point. If Zimmerman had lost Martin it had to have been that Martin turned back (completely negating any possibility he felt threatened), and brought about the final face to face.
Star Trek Four - The Voyage Home
Ugghh Star Trek IV. The one with the whales.
SSo how would a defendant ever testify on his own behalf?
I agree with you. I even used to have sort of okay exchanges with him a few years ago.
It’s actually quite disturbing how many way off the deep end leftists there are on FR, many been here for years. And often with seriously nasty attitudes. Got a freepmail (actually 5) from someone the other day who said everyone on the thread hated me and she got freepmails to prove it. Totally schizoid nutso.
This Travyon thing has really been a sort of litmus paper or something, showing where a lot of people really are at.
Then why do you think he followed him for several minutes?
Here's a site with links to Zimmerman's 911 call:
At 2:07, Zimmerman says "sh*t he's running."
At 3:37 he says "I don' know where this kids is".
And that is your big chase.
I do see the problem. I think he was only shot once in the chest. I would have thought there would also have been a head shot. Once deadly force is being used, it makes sense to pay attention to that “dead” part.
Oh, there is one other thing. His parents should be fined for giving a kid a name that assured that by the time of his becoming a young adult he would be either gay or dead.
This goes for naming a kid any two words, one of which is misspelled, morphed into one word.
________________________________________
I said nothing about testimony at trial, only self-serving statements.
A defense attorney can certainly put a defendant on the stand and ask him anything he wants to....but that then opens up the opportunity for the prosecution to tear the statements apart, which is why so many defendants are not called to testify.
_______________________________________
I'm not missing anything.
Without any witness to the events nobody can say what happened...not even you.
It is entirely possible that Zimmerman continued to look for Martin and found him. One could argue that this is more likely since we know that Zimmerman was following and we know that Martin avoided a confrontation by running away.
Things are not so just because you or anybody wants them to be. Most people realize this by a certain age.
“Trayvon Martin was suspended three times from school”
“In October, Martin was suspended with friends for writing “W.T.F.” on a hallway locker, according to a school report obtained by the Herald. A security guard looking through his backpack for the graffiti marker and instead found women’s rings and earrings and a screwdriver, described by the staffer as a “burglary tool.””
Burglary tool huh? Zim may have put the kabash on TM’s plan to do a little “jockey-boxing” that evening.
None of Zimmerman's testimony about the incident is at risk of being attacked as inadmissible, on account of it being self-serving. Not the statements he made to police, not the phone call to police dispatch, not any deposition testimony he might give, and not any statements he makes at trial if the prosecution goes to that step. The fact that much of his testimony is in his favor ("self serving" in the normal use of English) does not make it inadmissible as "self serving hearsay testimony", a legal principle.
A hypothetical example of self-serving hearsay testimony that would be inadmissible would be Zimmerman attributing knowledge to others (which is a form of hearsay), such as saying "my mother knows that Martin hit me and knocked me to the ground." The law would admit the mother giving evidence like that, if the mother had actual knowledge; but in this case the mother's testimony would be ruled hearsay because she was not present, and thereby lacked first-hand knowledge.
All testimony is subject to being rejected by a fact finder as being not credible; but that consideration happens after the evidence is admitted.
I've been noticing it as well.
They (Meaning Sanford cops) have got to have recordings with actual date/time info.
without that you can't tell if this took 5 minutes or 20 minutes.
That said, cell phone records can be subpoenaed from the company, the same as in civil cases and other criminal cases.
The Pink Panther Leader just wants to be insulated from the fuss....
(/s)
she appears to any reasonable person to ba a 51/50
going postal with the keyboard....
are you on the jury now? ask the judge to get the info for you and tell him to make it snappy!
Nowhere did I say you wrote anything.
I'm simply asking if you are you aware of any evidence, i.e.: eyewitness statements, CCTV, etc., that contradicts what he says happened or any evidence that proves that he's lying about what he says happened?
It is starting to look more and more like Zimmerman simply took out the trash.
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.