Posted on 04/12/2012 12:11:40 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Also, Zimmerman’s neighbor, who didn’t want to be shown on camera, has come forward to say that George Zimmerman’s face was indeed swollen the next day and he was wearing bandages. Also, he said he talks to Zimmerman every day and said that on the 911 tape of the person screaming for help, it was George Zimmerman.
After what we've seen from the prosecutor since yesterday, looks like she might be Angela Coreyfong.
Read this post.. You’ve just been confronted. Most people think ‘assaulted’ when they read ‘confronted’. It’s who assaulted first that matters.
sounds to me that the cops or the DA is cherry picking which information they want to believe...
She was not there. She was on the phone, supposedly.
The difference (and the reason her testimony will be admissible, and his not) is that she heard what Martin told her as the event was occurring. Zimmerman's father heard what Zimmerman told him after the fact. She can provide testimony (and be cross-examined) about Martin's contemporaneous demeanor, tone of voice, etc. Zimmerman's father has no such contemporaneous information, and can only testify to Zimmerman's after-the-fact statements.
The testimony of both Martin's girlfriend and Zimmerman's father would be hearsay (although Martin's girlfriend could also have non-hearsay testimony to provide, independent of what Martin told her - as an "earwitness," so to speak). The difference is that Martin's girlfriend's testimony about Martin's contemporaneous statements likely are admissible because they fall within at least one hearsay exception, maybe more (present sense impression, present state of mind, and excited utterance come to mind). Zimmerman's father's testimony is hearsay, but falls within no exception, and is clearly inadmissible.
They've never had their friends ostracize them, never had total strangers threaten them, never had co-workers leave them out of gatherings, never had the nightmares that don't ever go away.
But they can provide all kinds of puffed up, inexperienced spew that doesn't mean much.
You are basing your opinion on media related 'facts', and those are unreliable. It biases your outlook.
THINK of what the circumstances could have been if Zimmerman had stayed in his truck and NOT followed Martin.
The police would have shown up, they would have walked around the grounds, and we wouldn't even be talking about this.
Zimmerman's lawyers are going to have to prove somehow, someway, that Zimmerman was not the instigator.
Understood.
Zimmerman’s father’s statements are hearsay, of course. As is the girlfriends statement—she wasn’t there. She didn’t see anything. She cannot say “I saw such-and-such” or “I saw Zimmerman strike first” or anything like that. All she can say is what she heard over a cell-phone from a guy walking/running and during inclement weather.
The thug’s girlfriend, she cannot offer direct evidence, as you correctly pointed out, she can only say what he told her, and that is hardly credible and clearly easily impeached. The state has to prove facts, not accept at face value what someone told someone.
Thing is, she does not know for a fact what he said was true. I suggest her testimony will be heavily coached by self-serving SP lawyers, and especially by lawyers for the thug’s family. They will make sure they steer her to lie (yes, “lie”) to fit the narrative.
“He told me XXX” is hardly enough to convict, especially when, I suggest, it conflicts with the eye-witness testimony of John and forensics.
The SP errored greatly in bringing this charge and it will be thrown out if there is any justice for Zimmerman.
I’ll have to go to the Library and check the book out, I lost my copy in a flood last year.
Curious - did your liberal “friend” imply, then, that Martin beating down Zimmerman was actually therefore morally justified?
Would you punch then knock down someone for watching, following, or questioning you then bounce their skull into the sidewalk? How can that be justified? Martin feared Zimmerman was on the phone with the police. What was he so afraid of if he was just on a ‘Skittle’ run?
Don't know. If I felt threatened by some stranger watching, following, and asking me a bunch of questions, I'd wonder about his motive, and be prepared to defend myself. ESPECIALLY, if I am stranger in a strange neighborhood as Martin was.
As far as we have seen from the media, Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend. THAT conversation will go a long way to Martin's state of mind, if it is possible to find a recording, and not depend on word of mouth.
There are a lot of questions left in this case, and the prosecutor must have something other than what we have heard for this to go 2nd Degree.
Now, just to give you an example of what can go wrong when facts not in evidence need to be produced in a court of law, here's a recent one.
A Marine, retired from service, spots a burglary in progress, he phones 911 from INSIDE his truck, a description of the pair, the minivan they are driving, his location. Staying in communication, he follows the minivan to get the license plate. In the meantime, the pair see him following, stop, and approach the vehicle. Now, one of the perps, who has a long criminal background smashes the window and begins to attack the Marine. Sanchez draws his weapon seated INSIDE his truck and fires, killing the perp with 911 on the end of the line.
That case went to court to determine if the Marine fired to guard property or to defend himself.
What happened in this case is the Marine was charged, and never went to trial as the judge determine it was self defense.
The difference here is Sanchez STAYED in his truck. That is one of the factors in the Zimmerman case, that will determine his fate.
_____________________________________
If the grown stranger had a gun, you bet I would.
Here is John's statement: "The guy on the bottom (Zimmerman) who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, help…' and I told him to stop and I was calling 911"
Now, if Zimmerman threw the first punch, the "Stand Your Ground" law goes out the window but in the end, Zimmerman still acted in self-defense, right?
Unless a witness comes forward and states that he saw Martin attack Zimmerman or vice versa then you can't know what happened.
He says nothing about Martin attacking Zimmerman. He says nothing about who started the fight.
You say however that you know that martin attacked zimmerman...you have yet to provide proof.
They will need to stack the jury with black racist.
Otherwise, there will be riots if he's found innocent.
Yeah, I heard that Zimmerman had this fetish for laying on his back outside then bouncing his skull on the concrete then scream “Help, Help!!” just to get his neighbors’ attention. /sarc
No proof of what happened so you try lame humor....what a clever laddie you are.
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.