George Zimmerman's bloody head

The girlfriend is not a witness to the events since she didn't witness anything. She wasn't there. She can be a witness to what Martin told her. She can't even be a witness that what Martin told her is the truth. What Martin told her, is only hearsay.
You obviously don't understand the legal term hearsay.

If you are trying to argue that what she heard is not hearsay you are the one that does not understand.

It was a statement made out of court. Therefore it is hearsay.

The definition as follows
1. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
2. Law Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

Since the girllfriend wasn't there, whatever she has to say is based on what she was told by Trayvon Martin. Not her personal observation so it is hearsay. It might come under an exception, like state of mind, but it is still hearsay.
 
Unless they have something though that we haven't seen, the forcible felony route is pretty unlikely. (But the law FS 776.041 does negate self defense if the aggressor is committing a forcible felony.) Much more likely is for them to attempt to paint a picture that Zimmerman does not qualify for self defense based on his voluntary insertion into the event by leaving his truck and pursuing/follow/chasing Martin.

I dont understand how GZ leaving his truck negates his right to self defense.

Obviously I am not a lawyer, but if two guys get into a bar fight caused by patron A, and in that fight B gets the upper hand and begins to do things that are not just 'friendly fight' type of things but lethal, then doesnt A still have the right to use lethal force in response?

I have always heard that when B refuses to stop when A 'taps out' in some fashion, then B is taking the violence to a lethal level and this changes the options legally available to A in response.

While I am asking stupid questions, isnt the introduction of a third party assaulting A in support of B not also an escalation of the violence that justifies lethal force by A?

Anyway, I think the law is getting pretty convoluted when it expects people who are getting pummelled to cooly analyze their legal obligations. Most people just instinctively know that you dont beat peoples heads on sidewalks and not expect some kind of escalation on the part of the one being beaten.
 

Given the evidence we now have, he never should have been arrested and charged with 2nd degree murder in the first place. If the prosecutor doesnt have a serious bomb in terms of evidence, she is wasting the tax payers dollar and everyones time with this.

Why on Earth didnt she go with manslaughter? That would have had a chance to stick, though I would disagree that that happened either.

Why are the libs trying to criminalize self-defense?
 
Unless they have something though that we haven't seen, the forcible felony route is pretty unlikely. (But the law FS 776.041 does negate self defense if the aggressor is committing a forcible felony.) Much more likely is for them to attempt to paint a picture that Zimmerman does not qualify for self defense based on his voluntary insertion into the event by leaving his truck and pursuing/follow/chasing Martin.

I dont understand how GZ leaving his truck negates his right to self defense.
Obviously I am not a lawyer, but if two guys get into a bar fight caused by patron A, and in that fight B gets the upper hand and begins to do things that are not just 'friendly fight' type of things but lethal, then doesnt A still have the right to use lethal force in response?

I have always heard that when B refuses to stop when A 'taps out' in some fashion, then B is taking the violence to a lethal level and this changes the options legally available to A in response.

While I am asking stupid questions, isnt the introduction of a third party assaulting A in support of B not also an escalation of the violence that justifies lethal force by A?

Anyway, I think the law is getting pretty convoluted when it expects people who are getting pummelled to cooly analyze their legal obligations. Most people just instinctively know that you dont beat peoples heads on sidewalks and not expect some kind of escalation on the part of the one being beaten.
If I'm in a vehicle, I have two things vital to self defense: protection and means of escape.

This "Stand your ground" law is flawed in that it gives any potential murderer a quick and easy out. Just say you felt threatened. Even if circumstances are legitimate and you are threatened, if you use deadly force you should make an account of it. When a policeman shoots a suspect, there is a coroner's inquiry. Killing someone and explaining it from your point of view is not a limit on freedom, it's purely judicial responsibility.
 

Given the evidence we now have, he never should have been arrested and charged with 2nd degree murder in the first place. If the prosecutor doesnt have a serious bomb in terms of evidence, she is wasting the tax payers dollar and everyones time with this.

Why on Earth didnt she go with manslaughter? That would have had a chance to stick, though I would disagree that that happened either.

Why are the libs trying to criminalize self-defense?

Too many criminals are getting killed. Too many innocent people are defending themselves. The whole thing against George Zimmerman is that he didn't lay there and take the beating like he was supposed to. He was supposed to act like the tourist in Baltimore and feel grateful if he wasn't beaten to death.
 
You obviously don't understand the legal term hearsay.

If you are trying to argue that what she heard is not hearsay you are the one that does not understand.

It was a statement made out of court. Therefore it is hearsay.

The definition as follows
1. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
2. Law Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

Since the girllfriend wasn't there, whatever she has to say is based on what she was told by Trayvon Martin. Not her personal observation so it is hearsay. It might come under an exception, like state of mind, but it is still hearsay.

Are you saying people can't observe and report anything but what they perceive with their eyes?

Testifying as to the existence of the phone call would not be hearsay.

Testifying as to what she told Martin would not be hearsay.

Testifying as to hearing an unknown third voice over the connection would not be hearsay.


>>>>
 


Agree, bond release is not that uncommon for less than capital offense charges, Mr. Zimmerman voluntarily turned himself over to police when the initial charges were filed, it is very likely that family are placing assets on the line to secure the total bond amount.

To Mr. Zimmerman's credit he's done the right things to demonstrate he is a minimal flight risk. Good on him.


>>>>
 
If you are trying to argue that what she heard is not hearsay you are the one that does not understand.

It was a statement made out of court. Therefore it is hearsay.

The definition as follows
1. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
2. Law Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

Since the girllfriend wasn't there, whatever she has to say is based on what she was told by Trayvon Martin. Not her personal observation so it is hearsay. It might come under an exception, like state of mind, but it is still hearsay.

Are you saying people can't observe and report anything but what they perceive with their eyes?

Testifying as to the existence of the phone call would not be hearsay.

Testifying as to what she told Martin would not be hearsay.

Testifying as to hearing an unknown third voice over the connection would not be hearsay.


>>>>

Testifying what Martin told her is hearsay including his description of what was happening that night.
No one is denying that phone call ocurred, that she heard a third voice on the phone,or what she told Martin.
 
Unless they have something though that we haven't seen, the forcible felony route is pretty unlikely. (But the law FS 776.041 does negate self defense if the aggressor is committing a forcible felony.) Much more likely is for them to attempt to paint a picture that Zimmerman does not qualify for self defense based on his voluntary insertion into the event by leaving his truck and pursuing/follow/chasing Martin.

I dont understand how GZ leaving his truck negates his right to self defense.


It wouldn't.

The **possible** scenario would apply to that critical 60-seconds or so between the end of the girlfriends phone call at approximately 19:16 and the gun shot recorded in the neighbors call 911 tape.

During the time of the initial hostilities we have no evidence (that has been made public) as to who specifically was the aggressor. At this time either Martin or Zimmerman scenarios are equally likely. Given the presumption of innocence then there would (or should) be insufficient evidence to convict Zimmerman.

Some assume for a fact that Martin attacked Zimmerman and other claim as a fact that Zimmerman attacked Martin, the reality is that we don't know at this point.


Obviously I am not a lawyer, but if two guys get into a bar fight caused by patron A, and in that fight B gets the upper hand and begins to do things that are not just 'friendly fight' type of things but lethal, then doesnt A still have the right to use lethal force in response?

Maybe.

Under Florida law if patron A has no prior conviction of assault and there was no other felony in progress, then patron A's action would be classified as simple assault (784.011) which is classified as a misdemeanor. If the fight escalated to the point where he feared death or great bodily injury then he could advance the use of force to include lethal force. However if patron A had a previous conviction for assault and then initiated the bar fight, has actions would be then aggravated assault (784.021) which is a felony and would fall under the provisions of 776.041 (use of force by an aggressor) and in this case under Florida law his actions would have negated a self defense claim.


I have always heard that when B refuses to stop when A 'taps out' in some fashion, then B is taking the violence to a lethal level and this changes the options legally available to A in response.

That is basically the second provision of 776.041 which provides that if the initial attacker is presented with a reasonable opportunity, as determined by a reasonable person, to withdraw and does not take it and continues the fight, then again they can lose the claim of self defense.


While I am asking stupid questions, isnt the introduction of a third party assaulting A in support of B not also an escalation of the violence that justifies lethal force by A?

I would think so, if the introduction of the third party was in a manner that continued to threaten patron A. For example someone jumps in and tries to pin patron A's arms, then yes. However if someone jumps between the two trying to separate them, then no.

Anyway, I think the law is getting pretty convoluted when it expects people who are getting pummelled to cooly analyze their legal obligations. Most people just instinctively know that you dont beat peoples heads on sidewalks and not expect some kind of escalation on the part of the one being beaten.

IMHO, that would be an incorrect interpretation of what the law is trying to do.

What the law is trying to do, again IMHO, is to state that if you are the initial aggressor and you are in the act of committing a forcible felony (murder, rape, kidnapping, unlawful detention, aggravated assault, aggravated battery, etc.) that you cannot initiate the conflict, have it escalate and then claim self defense.

Take for example a woman walking down the sidewalk returning home from the library. An unknown assailant grabs her and drags her into an ally. The unknown assailant then begins to beat and attempts to rape her. However she fights back - maybe she knows martial arts or grabs a short piece of 2x4 laying on the ground and beats back at the attacker. The attacker then pulls a gun and shoots the woman dead, the police arrive on scene and arrest him. In this case where the attacker is committing a forcible felony, he cannot claim self defense because she hit him with a board because he was the initial aggressor.


************************

Link to FL Laws -->> http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Title46/#Title46


>>>>
 
Last edited:
Link to the third voice report please. I don't even believe half the bullshit the news have put out there so I'd really like a solid link.

Hell's bells as if the NBC editing scandal wasn't bad enough, you also had that asswipe Wolf Blitzer driving that phoney story of Zimmerman saying "fucking coon".

Cripes the media just made shit up. It's outrageous. I hope Zimmerman sues the ass off that fired NBC executive that allowed that editing to make Zimmerman look like he was profiling.
 
It was a statement made out of court. Therefore it is hearsay.

The definition as follows
1. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
2. Law Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

Since the girllfriend wasn't there, whatever she has to say is based on what she was told by Trayvon Martin. Not her personal observation so it is hearsay. It might come under an exception, like state of mind, but it is still hearsay.

Are you saying people can't observe and report anything but what they perceive with their eyes?

Testifying as to the existence of the phone call would not be hearsay.

Testifying as to what she told Martin would not be hearsay.

Testifying as to hearing an unknown third voice over the connection would not be hearsay.


>>>>

Testifying what Martin told her is hearsay including his description of what was happening that night.
No one is denying that phone call ocurred, that she heard a third voice on the phone,or what she told Martin.


None of the three areas of testimony that I mentioned are "Testifying what Martin told her...".

But yes there are provisions where hearsay is admissible when the declaration is not available or if the availability of the deodorant is immaterial, we will have to wait for the discovery and preliminary hearings to see if that aspect of her testimony would be allowed under Florida Rules of Evidence 90.803 (Hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial).


>>>>
 
Link to the third voice report please. I don't even believe half the bullshit the news have put out there so I'd really like a solid link.

Trayvon Martin girlfriend speaks detail: Trayvon Martin's girlfriend speaks out with details of teen's death. - Orlando Sentinel


The girlfriend has been interviewed by investigators at this point and will have made official statements to them. We will now have to probably wait for trial to see what she testifies to.


>>>>
 
Link to the third voice report please. I don't even believe half the bullshit the news have put out there so I'd really like a solid link.

Trayvon Martin girlfriend speaks detail: Trayvon Martin's girlfriend speaks out with details of teen's death. - Orlando Sentinel


The girlfriend has been interviewed by investigators at this point and will have made official statements to them. We will now have to probably wait for trial to see what she testifies to.


>>>>

I like the part where he realizes someone is watching him so he hides in his hoodie.
 
If you are trying to argue that what she heard is not hearsay you are the one that does not understand.

It was a statement made out of court. Therefore it is hearsay.

The definition as follows
1. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
2. Law Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

Since the girllfriend wasn't there, whatever she has to say is based on what she was told by Trayvon Martin. Not her personal observation so it is hearsay. It might come under an exception, like state of mind, but it is still hearsay.

Are you saying people can't observe and report anything but what they perceive with their eyes?

Testifying as to the existence of the phone call would not be hearsay.

Testifying as to what she told Martin would not be hearsay.

Testifying as to hearing an unknown third voice over the connection would not be hearsay.


>>>>

Yes I am saying that people can't testify to anything but what they personally perceive. Testifying as to the existence of the phone call would not be hearsay. Testifying that what Martin told her was happening is hearsay. Testifying what she said is not hearsay as long as it is not used for the purpose of proving the facts of what was happening. Testifying as to hearing a voice that the witness did not recognize is not hearsay as long as the testimony is not used to prove it was Zimmerman speaking.

I'll give you an example.

Witness says she spoke to victim at 11:47 and the victim said he was being followed. This can be used to prove that at 11:47 the victim was alive, but can't be used to prove that he was being followed or who was following him. What it can be used for is to prove that there is a state of mind exception to the hearsay rule that at 11:47 the victim thought he was being followed. But it can't be used to prove that the victim was really being followed or who was following him.

Is it any more clear now?
 
It was a statement made out of court. Therefore it is hearsay.

The definition as follows
1. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
2. Law Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

Since the girllfriend wasn't there, whatever she has to say is based on what she was told by Trayvon Martin. Not her personal observation so it is hearsay. It might come under an exception, like state of mind, but it is still hearsay.

Are you saying people can't observe and report anything but what they perceive with their eyes?

Testifying as to the existence of the phone call would not be hearsay.

Testifying as to what she told Martin would not be hearsay.

Testifying as to hearing an unknown third voice over the connection would not be hearsay.


>>>>

Yes I am saying that people can't testify to anything but what they personally perceive. Testifying as to the existence of the phone call would not be hearsay. Testifying that what Martin told her was happening is hearsay. Testifying what she said is not hearsay as long as it is not used for the purpose of proving the facts of what was happening. Testifying as to hearing a voice that the witness did not recognize is not hearsay as long as the testimony is not used to prove it was Zimmerman speaking.

I'll give you an example.

Witness says she spoke to victim at 11:47 and the victim said he was being followed. This can be used to prove that at 11:47 the victim was alive, but can't be used to prove that he was being followed or who was following him. What it can be used for is to prove that there is a state of mind exception to the hearsay rule that at 11:47 the victim thought he was being followed. But it can't be used to prove that the victim was really being followed or who was following him.

Is it any more clear now?


Perfectly, but not where I was going.

Some seem to be of the opinion that they can call something "hearsay" and it will not be admissible, which is not true. Hearsay is admissible under certain conditions. If hearsay testimony is sought, it will normally be delt with during pre-trial motions and if allowed the conditions and limits set.

All I was say'n.


>>>>
 
Okay, I read the Orlando Sentinel's story a quizzillion times and I don't see anything about the girlfriend saying that she heard a third voice.
 
Okay, I read the Orlando Sentinel's story a quizzillion times and I don't see anything about the girlfriend saying that she heard a third voice.

"She told attorneys she then heard the 17-year-old ask "What are you following me for?"

Then a man, presumably Zimmerman, replied: "What are you doing around here?""​


Martin = 1

Girlfriend = 2

"Then a man" = 3



>>>>
 
I expect Parts of the young lady's account may be admitted at trial; other parts of it very well might not be. I'm thinking about her comments about Trayvon being cornered" and "being pushed'. Those would likely be considered speculation on her part, and inadmissible.

There are some key questions here. First did Zimmerman follow Martin with the intent to confront him, or simply to attempt to regain sight of him? We really don't know the answer to that; all we do know is that as of the end of his call to the dispatcher, Zimmerman had NOT regained sight of Martin; he said as much a few seconds earlier, and there is NO reason to suppose that if he had regained sight of Martin, he would have told the dispatcher where he saw him.That call ended at 19:5:22. Martin's cell phone call ended no later than 17:16:00, and by the girlfriend's account the verbal confrontation began a few seconds before the call was dropped. That leaves a period of some 30-35 seconds for Zimmerman to regain sight of Martin. Where were each of them during that interval? We don't knowThat is , however plenty of time for Zimmerman to have proceeded up the sidewalk in the common area , in an attempt to regain sight of Martin, beyond the point where the altercation occurred, and having failed to do so, turned around and started walking back toward his vehicle. Did he? We don't know, but that is both possible and consistent with his account. IF that's what happened we can reasonably conclude it is likely that Martin did not proceed too far in that direction, and was not proceeding toward Brandy Green's home at the time;if he had been he would have been visible to Zimmerman, because the area is open. That makes it more likely that Martin had ducked behind a corner of one of the rows of buildings, and the closest point at which he could have done that, looking at the map, is behind the corner of the group of buildings on the left, when looking at the map posted here earlier. If that is correct , that would place him behind Zimmerman and to his left, as Zimmerman turned and walked toward his vehicle. That would be consistent with Zimmerman's account that Martin approached him from the left rear. None of this proves anything, but it does make Zimmerman's account consistent with those facts we know.
 

Forum List

Back
Top