Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014064]OTM - To a certain degree, you are correct and I am in full agreement with you. You cannot resort to deadly force [I]simply[/I] b/c you are losing a fight. You can, however, resort to deadly force w/out being guilty of manslaughter or murder if (1) you are losing a fight, (2) in fear of your life - [I]and[/I] (3) are not responsible for starting the fight.

If you start a fight, begin to lose it but have no reasonable fear for your life, and kill someone, that's murder 1 (By the way, this is the scenario applicable to my following G84C, him starting a fight, me kicking his butt and him shooting me. So long as all I do is kick his ass in a fight and pull off when he inevitably starts screaming for help).

If you start a fight, begin to lose and have reasonable fear for your life, and use deadly force, that's murder 2 (This is the scenario applicable to my following G84C, him starting a fight, me going beyond just beating him, and him shooting me);

If both parties enter into mutual combat (e.g. - two guys in a bar say "let's take it outside"), one begins to lose but has no reasonable fear for his life and kills his opponent anyway, murder 2.

If both parties enter into mutual combat, one begins to lose, has reasonable fear for his life and kills his opponent, manslaughter.

If a party does not start the fight, begins to lose, then has reasonable fear of his life, and kills his opponent - innocent.

[Disclaimer: I am not a criminal lawyer. The various degrees and factors going into determining the "level" of a homicide are dependent on State law and are not particularly straightforward. The breakdown above is based on some research I had previously done and my understanding of certain basic principles].

Here, there is clear evidence of a fight between Martin and Zimmerman. For any charge to stick, however, the Prosecution [I][B]must prove beyond a reasonable doubt[/B][/I] that either Zimmerman started the fight [I]or[/I] there was an agreement (tacit or otherwise) between Z and TM to enter into mutual combat. Unless I missed it, there is simply no evidence of who started the fight (who moved it from a verbal confrontation to a physical one). There [I]is[/I] lots and lots of speculation based on what people believe the parties were thinking or who the type of person they believe TM or Z to be.

I simply don't think the evidence to date does (or ever will) show how this fight started. B/c of that, I don't think, as a matter of law, the prosecution can prove its case. To me, it's that simple. For those who say, well, it's Martin's word against Z and Martin is dead. True enough. But unless you are willing to radically and fundamentally change the burden we place on the State when trying to deprive a person of their life or liberty, it's the price we pay for requiring innocent until [I]proven[/I] guilty. Worse men than Z have been found innocent of much worse for lack of the dead witness.

However, I am sure that the prosecution is hoping for folks like you, OTM, on the jury. "There's a dead kid. I don't care about legal elements, burden of proof, or innocent until proven guilty ... You can't kill shoot a kid just b/c you got in his face and he [I]may[/I] have over reacted. Hell, for all we know, you started the fight. You better prove to me you didn't start this and that you really were in fear of your life."

Until the EMT and Good testified, I think the prosecution has a good chance of accomplishing (what I presume to be) its goal. Before then, they had Z following and confronting Martin, confusion, a fight and a dead kid with Z ending up on top.

After the EMT and Good, the details changed a bit. Good made it clear there was a point where TM was on top and appeared to be hitting Z with Z clearly yelling for help. The EMT testified that a person in Z's condition and on his back would have blood running down his throat, be likely feeling the effects of brain or concussive injuries and would probably be in reasonable fear for his life. IMHO, These two witnesses provided enough evidence to create a [I]prima facia[/I] showing of reasonable fear of life on Z's part -- without the need for Z's testimony -- such that the burden again shifts to the State to prove Z [I]wasn't[/I] reasonable in that fear.

Maybe your view prevails OTM. Perhaps, despite the lack of evidence, the State's burden to show who started this fight, and the protections against self-incrimination, maybe emotion prevails and Z's failure to testify dooms him.

Personally, I hope the rule of law prevails and that innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the State through legally admissable evidence remains the standard.[/quote]

Two figures tussling on the ground then one pulls out a gun, bloody murder!!!!

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014180]Who threw the first punch? Why? Prove it.

Someone aggressively starting a verbal confrontation with you DOES NOT LET YOU START WAILING ON THEM OR EVEN TOUCH THEM. If you do, you are at fault.

Damn. The willingness to ignore legal requirements, innocent until proven guilty and the State's burden to prove their case when you're offended is mind boggling. Pitchforks and torches all around.[/quote]

If you wail on someone, that is assault. You shoot and kill them, that is murder. State knows Z shot and killed Martin that is murder. Unless, Z can prove his life was in danger. Martin was not armed.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014181]Bullshit. It most certainly can be. You are either blinded by bias or an idiot.[/quote]

Even in the days of the wild west that is murder. Everyone knows you can not shoot somebody just cause they beat you in a fist fight.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

A medical examiner who reviewed video and photographs of George Zimmerman's injuries suffered during his fatal confrontation with Trayvon Martin called the neighborhood watch captain's wounds "insignificant" and "non-life threatening."

Dr. Valerie Rao testified that Zimmerman was struck as few as three times by Martin during the fight that night. She also asserted his head may have only been slammed on the concrete a single time. Zimmerman, who faces second-degree murder charges for the death of the unarmed teenager, said Martin repeatedly slammed his head on the concrete.

"Are the injuries on the back of the defendant's head consistent with one strike against a concrete surface?" asked prosecutor John Guy

"Yes," Rao said.

"And why do you say that?" asked Guy

"Because if you hit the head one time, it is consistent with having gotten those two injuries at that one time," she testified.

Rao's testimony could contradict Zimmerman's assertion that he was involved in a potentially life-threatening struggle with the Florida teenager.

Catch up on all the details from the George Zimmerman murder trial.

Zimmerman, 29, claims he shot Martrin, 17, in self defense on Feb. 26, 2012 as Martin repeatedly banged his head against the pavement and reached for Zimmerman's gun.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Gary84Clark;1014210]Trayvon was 5' 11" the doctor testified today.[/quote]

Thanks for correcting me. How old is 5' 11"?

[quote=Gary84Clark;1014210] The rapper Game is 6' 2" and photos of Game are the photos conservatives have been trying to pass off as Trayvon. Stick to facts rat.[/quote]

I hadn't heard about Game being passed off as Martin. Thankfully the race baiting Lefties didn't run pictures of a young, fresh-faced Trayvon......

[quote=Gary84Clark;1014210] Fist fights don't give you a right to murder.That is unusual. He was not armed.[/quote]

Are you saying because he (Martin) was black he [B][U]SHOULD[/U][/B] have been armed?

Still, not the point I was intending to make. He didn't [U]appear[/U] to be a 'child' to Zimmerman, he didn't [U]act[/U] like a scared 'child' when he challenged Zimmerman. Sorry if that wasn't obvious.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

I think gary84clark is just ****in with you redskinsjoe...... at least I hope he is. Either way thank you for all your helpful and insightful legal explanations.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1014221]Thanks for correcting me. How old is 5' 11"?



I hadn't heard about Game being passed off as Martin. Thankfully the race baiting Lefties didn't run pictures of a young, fresh-faced Trayvon......
[/quote]

Tupac is 5'11".

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

so if T woulda shot Zim in this outcome...? innocent

Or in both instances, just because Zim apparently was getting his ass handed to him by a kid by a confrontation initiated by Zim, is T guilty?

I think regardless of technical details, Zim should be punished by jailtime because this situation was started by him.

To say Zim holds some type of authority to walk around his neighborhood with a gun, harrassing children or anybody is just about as foolish a thing ive ever heard of. His actions and reasoning is idoitic to the nth degree.

It sounds like Zim finally got the ass kicking he rightfully deserved and when he couldnt handle it, he shot a child.

I dont seriously think his life was ever in danger. He's lying because thats his "out." He's a coward and a liar.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Chico23231;1014229]It sounds like Zim finally got the ass kicking he rightfully deserved and when he couldnt handle it, he shot a child. [/quote]

What are you basing this on? All the other times he harassed children?

You don't like Zimmerman, fine. Don't let it cloud your impartiality, otherwise you come off like some kind of bigot.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Gary84Clark;1014212]Two figures tussling on the ground then one pulls out a gun, bloody murder!!!![/quote]

MAYBE!! It could also be manslaughter or it could be no crime at all. Depends on facts - Something you reached a conclusion on before the opening statements were made. You had the gallows for Z built and the rope waiting. Read the [I]Ox-Bow Incident[/I]. I tip my hat to you Major Tetley.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Gary84Clark;1014218]A medical examiner [B]who reviewed video and photographs[/B] of George Zimmerman's injuries suffered during his fatal confrontation with Trayvon Martin called the neighborhood watch captain's wounds "insignificant" and "non-life threatening." ...

Dr. Valerie Rao testified that Zimmerman was struck as few as three times by Martin during the fight that night. She also asserted his head may have only been slammed on the concrete a single time. Zimmerman, who faces second-degree murder charges for the death of the unarmed teenager, said Martin repeatedly slammed his head on the concrete.

"Are the injuries on the back of the defendant's head consistent with one strike against a concrete surface?" asked prosecutor John Guy

"Yes," Rao said.

"And why do you say that?" asked Guy

"Because if you hit the head one time, it is consistent with having gotten those two injuries at that one time," she testified. ...[/quote]

Dr. Rao is the first, and to my knowledge, the only direct evidence offered by the prosecution to contradict Z's assertion that he was reasonably in fear of his life. Rao, however, was not at the scene, did not see or examine Z at the time of the incident, and reached her conclusions about the injuries only from reviewing photos and videos after the fact.

Further, Rao's testimony conflicts with that of the EMT who examined Z at the scene. (And does not address in any way the testimony of Good that Z was on the ground with TM on top of him with Z yelling for help).

IMHO, much of Rao's testimony was simple conjecture in hindsight and was highlighted as such by the defense's cross exam. Here is what the Cross-X brought out:

- Rao admitted that Martin could have hit Zimmerman in the face more than one time.

- Rao said it is possible there could have been more than one blow to the concrete.

- Rao said the bruise to the right side of Zimmerman's head could be consistent with his head hitting concrete. She said it was a small bruise, but there was some swelling.

So, while I fully expect the prosecution to hang their hat on Rao's testimony and hope for biased, emotional mobs participants like G84C to ignore everything else presented on the issue, to me, it's the same speculative evidence that the prosecution has been presenting all along.

It's very possible that it happened as Rao said - one strike against the concrete caused the two injuries. It's also possible that it happened just as Z said it did and as the EMT opined - multiple strikes againat the concrete causing disorientation and reasonalbe fear for medical safety.

It's that whole burden of proof thing again - always a stumbling block to the pitchfork and torches crowd.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014261]...

It's that whole burden of proof thing again - always a stumbling block to the pitchfork and torches crowd.[/quote]

so "she turned me into a newt" is not sufficient proof when you got better?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Chico23231;1014229]so if T woulda shot Zim in this outcome...? innocent.

Or in both instances, just because Zim apparently was getting his ass handed to him by a kid by [B]a confrontation initiated by Zim[/B], is T guilty?[/quote]

What do you mean "this outcome"? If the only fact you change is that T shoots Z, you still have much of the speculative issues presented. T claims he was in fear of his life but testimony places him on top of Z in "ground and pound" mode with Z yelling for help. Next thing we know, Z is dead. (assume also the other witnesses come out and say they see TM get off the ground with a prone Z next to him).

I think the case against TM would be stronger especially since his body showed no evidence of injury. But, essentially, and assuming TM asserts self-defense, you would have much the same issues - speculation as to who started the fight and what happened during it. Certainly, the underlying principles - burden of proof, legal elements of the crime charged and innocent until proven guilty would be applicable to TM just as they now apply to Z.

And to be clear - "a confrontation initiated by Z" is a generalization that encompasses both legal and illegal acts in this situation. Z can initiate a verbal confrontation. TM can initiate a verbal confrontation. [I]NEITHER[/I] can initiate a physical confrontation.

People can yell at you and aggressively taunt you in public. They can call you dirty names. They can call you the N word. They can call you a crazy cracker. They can insult your parents, sister and kids. They can make general threats of harm so long as they do so from a position where they can't reasonably be expected to carry out the threat (Shouting "I'm gonna kick your ass" from 10 feet away). They can stay at more than arms length and "flinch" as if to strike you. ...

You know what you (be you a teen, child or adult) can do in these situations? Yell back, call the cops or simply ignore it. [If they make a threat and then move to carry it out - that's different[I] e.g. [/I]saying they are going to kick your ass and then charging you. [I]While you would still have a duty to retreat[/I] (in MD) - you only need do so if you believe you can reasonably get to a safe place]

[quote=Chico23231;1014229]I think regardless of technical details, Zim should be punished by jailtime because [B]this situation was started by him.[/B] [/quote]

Those "technical details" are, again, what I like to refer to as "law" and "burden of proof".

Z, through his actions, initiated the "situation" of a verbal confrontation - there is no evidence as to who started the "situation" of a physical confrontation. Leading up to the physical confontation, Z - IMHO - clearly exercised bad judgment. Bad judgment, however, is not a crime. Initiating a physical attack is - and that "situation" may have been "started" by Z or TM.

Before sending Z to jail, the State bears the burden of proof and persuasion to show BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that Z committed all the elements of the crime for which he is accused.

[quote=Chico23231;1014229]To say Zim holds some type of authority to walk around his neighborhood with a gun, harrassing children or anybody is just about as foolish a thing ive ever heard of. His actions and reasoning is idoitic to the nth degree.[/quote]

Who has alleged he has authority to harass anyone?? True, much as you don't like it, Z was legally authorized to carry a concealed weapon in public spaces. Assuming Z was harassing folks, however, if that harrasment was limited to following people and verbally confronting them, the appropriate response is to CALL THE F'ING POLICE. YOU DO NOT get to take matters into your own hands.

DAMN - why is this such a hard concept for folks to comprehend. Had TM said to his friend, "I'll call you back, I gotta call the police some crazy cracker is followng me." Maybe, just maybe, it would have been straightened out quickly. Instead, we get macho wannabe crime stopper versus macho wannabe teen and a tragic outcome with nothing but speculation on the key elements of legal responsibilty.

I gotta say, the willingness and ease with which some of you think violence is a proper response to being challenged, "harrased" or otherwise inconvenienced is disconcerting. Why does violence exist? B/c people still fundamentally believe it is the right way to resolve personal problems.

[quote=Chico23231;1014229]It sounds like Zim finally got the ass kicking he rightfully deserved and when he couldnt handle it, he shot a child.

I dont seriously think his life was ever in danger. He's lying because thats his "out." He's a coward and a liar.[/quote]

Well, screw the trial then - the line for pitchforks and torches starts behind G84C.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=mlmpetert;1014224]I think gary84clark is just ****in with you redskinsjoe...... at least I hope he is. Either way thank you for all your helpful and insightful legal explanations.[/quote]

I don't think he is. I think he believes a real man "whoops yo' ass" if you bother him and f***' em if they start to lose - they shouldn't been bothering his ass.

Your welcome. I find the work by the lawyers in this matter fascinating.

I am also fascinated - and discouraged - by the ease with which some here are willing to ignore the requirements of the law to accomplish what they believe should be the "right" outcome and their failure to see this logic as anything more than an old style mob lynching.

Equally disconcerting to me is the belief of some here that, even if TM initiated the [I]physical[/I] confrontation b/c Z followed (or stalked if you would like the more emotionally charged word) and aggressively verbally confronted him, TM would somehow be justified in attacking Z.

The rule of law is not dead in this country, but I firmly believe it is on life support.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1014265]so "she turned me into a newt" is not sufficient proof when you got better?[/quote]

Let's just throw Z in the water - if he floats, he's guilty. If he drowns, he's innocent.

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;1014285]Let's just throw Z in the water - if he floats, he's guilty. If he drowns, he's innocent.[/QUOTE]

Finally! Some sense!

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Just read through prosecution's witnesses regarding Z's "wannabe cop" status. Again, tell me how putting an African-American law professor on the stand who clearly likes the defendant (He waved and said "Hey George" when he took the stand), gave him an A in his class, and says Z was "one of the smarter students", is helpful to the prosecution. I am missing that.

On top of that, on Cross-X, the professor gives the defense a gold mine of good stuff:

- Injuries support a person's fear of great bodily harm, according to Carter, but a person can still have a fear of harm without having injuries. "You don't have to wait until you're almost dead to defense yourself?" asked West. "No, I would advise you probably not do that," said Carter.

- "It’s fluid, the law [on self-defense] as it applies isn’t static. Any change in a certain fact can weigh differently in terms of whether someone acted reasonably," said Carter.

- Carter says he taught his class: "When stuff hits the fan, you’re judged by jurors and your actions have to meet a reasonable standard, objectively. So whether or not a reasonable person in your position would have felt the way you felt." Carter also says [B]part of self-defense is the individual's subjective feelings of facing death or "grievous bodily harm."[/B]

So, you put up a guy to testify about the applicable law who (1) is an African-American professional that likes your defendant and thinks highly of him and (2) opines on the law in a way that calls into question (by saying self-defense relies on subjective belief) the relevance of your medical expert's (Rao's) testimony about how, objectively and in-hind sight, Z should not have been reasonably in fear of his life.

Mind you, the prosecution fought to put this guy on the stand. I admit, I don't get it. Can someone from the pitchforks & torches mob inform me how Prof. Carter's testimony supported your belief that Z committed murder? Is it just - He studied law, he should have known better? He was a wannabe lawyer/cop? How does that alter the underlying speculative nature of the key legal elements of this case?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Today's running notes on the testimony:
[url=http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/07/03/george-zimmerman-trial-trayvon-martin-day-8]Live blog: Was Zimmerman a 'wannabe cop?' | HLNtv.com[/url]

Eerily reminiscent of the OJ trial in its ineptitude. Real WTF moments. Nancy Grace is going to implode, so at least there's an upside.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

For all those carrying pitchforks and torches, would your emotions be so inflamed if TM had killed Z under the exact same circumstances for which you say Z stands accused? [I]i.e.[/I] - After following and verbally confronting an unarmed homeowner who TM subjectively thought was acting suspiciously, TM shoots and kills the homeowner because the teen was beginning to lose a fight that no one knows who started.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Gary84Clark;1014211]Joe I disagree, you can't claim your life was in danger and then kill people. Sorry, proclaiming your life is in danger has to be supported by evidence. Z's injuries were characterized as insignificant by the doctors today. He killed someone we know this. Was his life in danger? The person he shot was not armed. Even cops can't get away with that.[/quote]

100% correct. You can't simply claim fear of death and kill someone. [B]BUT [/B]it's one of the main issues of the trial. Was Z [B]REASONABLY[/B] in fear for his life? You say no. But a) you weren't there and b) they have testimony from an EMT lending credence to the notion that he could have been. Your personal opinion on how one should react in some vaguely familiar situation is irrelevant (otherwise...someone quick call the prosecutor so G84C can testify). Are there situations in which you can't shoot and kill someone during a fist-fight? Yes. Are there situations where you can? Yes. It's not either or. The context of the situation matters above all. Why is that hard to understand?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=mlmpetert;1014164]

To the law guys out there, am I right in assuming that if things are going the defense's way that they will very likely ask the judge to make an immunity or affirmative defense or other type of ruling that prevents or limits criminal or civil liability before jury deliberations even start?

[/quote]

i can only tell you maryland law. there is a strange twist.

1) if a person pays a traffic fine by mail = cant use in civil trial (this only applied to fine traffic citations and not murder) reason is that the person may have just paid the fine out of convenience and it is not considered an admission of guilt

2) if a person pleads guilty in open court = can be used as admissible evidence of negligence in the civil trial

3) if the person pleads not guilty and is found guilty after a trial = the conviction can not be used in the civil trial as evidence of negligence. the person's statements under oath (if they took the stand) can be used in the civil trial for impeachment/inconsistent statement issues if they arise in the civil trial.

its weird, you would think that if a person was found guilty where the burden of proof was the highest standard of "beyond a reas doubt", that it surely should be admissible for a civil trial with the lesser burden of proof being a "preponderance of evidence" = is something more likely than not likely = 51% true vs 49% not true.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1014305]Eerily reminiscent of the OJ trial in its ineptitude. Real WTF moments. Nancy Grace is going to implode, so at least there's an upside.[/quote]

In defense of prosecutors: This may be their biggest case of the year, it is certainly not their only one. If it's anything like Baltimore, these folks are vastly overworked.

It's not like on TV where you have nothing to do for three weeks and are spending night and day on this matter and have unlimited time to prep every witness to the nth degree. Even in the best of circumstances, putting on a trial is difficult work - so many variables. While the State has vast resources, it doesn't have vast resources to pinpoint on this one prosecution. The defense, on the other hand, can pretty much manipulate its case load to clear away substantial prep time and can focus all its financial reserves on this matter.

[I once went to observe one of the attorneys from my office at a trial. I walked in and, on one side of the room was one attorney, one paralegal, several notepads and 50 or so file boxes and manila folders in the benches behind her. On the other side were three attorneys, four paralegals, two law clerks, several laptops and a rolling bookcase of relevant caselaw and binders of clearly marked documents. Guess which side was the State?]

Generally, in run-of-the-mill cases, the prosecution gets a benefit from being the State and being able to call whatever crime scene investigators, DNA experts, accident reconstructionists, etc. at no particular expense b/c these folks work for the State. To oppose them, defendants usually have to spend big bucks to scrutinize all the evidence, chains of control, validity of methodology, etc.

With defendants who have a large war chest, this prosecutorial benefit goes to the wayside. In any real controversy, prosecutors have the much harder job. It's just a tough job and I don't envy them.

With that said, I just have a hard time understanding some of the prosecution's moves. They better have a brilliant closing planned.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014306]For all those carrying pitchforks and torches, would your emotions be so inflamed if TM had killed Z under the exact same circumstances for which you say Z stands accused? [I]i.e.[/I] - After following and verbally confronting an unarmed homeowner who TM subjectively thought was acting suspiciously, TM shoots and kills the homeowner because the teen was beginning to lose a fight that no one knows who started.[/quote]

Then Martin would be convicted of murder. cut and dry.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014312]With that said, I just have a hard time understanding some of the prosecution's moves. They better have a brilliant closing planned.[/quote]

I imagine it's going to sound a little like G84C. Because they certainly haven't proven much of anything other than no one knows what the heck happened for real.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[QUOTE=Gary84Clark;1014313]Then Martin would be convicted of murder. cut and dry.[/QUOTE]

That is not the question I asked. Reading is fundamental.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1014221]Thanks for correcting me. How old is 5' 11"?



I hadn't heard about Game being passed off as Martin. Thankfully the race baiting Lefties didn't run pictures of a young, fresh-faced Trayvon......



Are you saying because he (Martin) was black he [B][U]SHOULD[/U][/B] have been armed?

Still, not the point I was intending to make. He didn't [U]appear[/U] to be a 'child' to Zimmerman, he didn't [U]act[/U] like a scared 'child' when he challenged Zimmerman. Sorry if that wasn't obvious.[/quote]



what law states he should even acknowledge Zimmerman. What law states he should have feared Zimmerman. What law says Zimmerman had the right to harass another residents guest?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Gary84Clark;1014318]what law states he should even acknowledge Zimmerman. What law states he should have feared Zimmerman. What law says Zimmerman had the right to harass another residents guest?[/quote]

If TM felt unlawfully harrassed by Zimmerman, what law says TM could initiate a physical confrontation?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

I think it is reasonable to say Trayvon feared for his life when Z approached him. That would justify him beating Z up, if that happened? They have a video where the police are with Z in his interview, its on abcnews.com. They tell Z if you had identified yourself to this child then we would not be here.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Gary84Clark;1014324]That would justify him beating Z up, if that happened?[/quote]

In what manner? To ask for directions? To ask him his name and his intentions? To tell him to go back where came from? To tell him he had a gun and was going to shoot him? To call him a n**** and make him cry? Give us, oh knower of all things, the exact situation. Not a general happenstance.

[QUOTE=Gary84Clark;1014324]I think it is reasonable to say Trayvon feared for his life when Z approached him. [/QUOTE]

What testimony are you basing that statement on?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014306]For all those carrying pitchforks and torches, would your emotions be so inflamed if TM had killed Z under the exact same circumstances for which you say Z stands accused? [I]i.e.[/I] - After following and verbally confronting an unarmed homeowner who TM subjectively thought was acting suspiciously, TM shoots and kills the homeowner because the teen was beginning to lose a fight that no one knows who started.[/quote]

TM would be guilty.

i see zimmerman getting man 1 or 2.

Z contributed to there being a confrontation. Z may have been in fear of his life subjectively but just getting punched a few times doesnt rise to the level of an objective "kill or be killed" situation.

also you mentioned that it was unfavorable for the prosecutor to allow the professor witness say that a person needs to be subjectively in fear of death. to my understanding, while not helpful to the prosecutor, it is the correct recitation of law re lethal force self defense. although i wouldnt have allowed it. i would have told the judge that it would be improper to allow this character witness to testify as to the law of Florida as the judge will properly do as in her closing jury instructions as well as argue he was unqualified in voir dire .. although that would be odd to try and disqualify your own witness ..

a person fear needs to be reasonable (objective = reas person in his position would think they are going to die) and subjective (the person actually thought they were going to die)

ill try to come up with a hypo to illustrate (im sure it will be flawed)

1) A points gun at B and says "i'm going to kill you". B thinks he is going to die. B pulls out his own gun and shoots A.

- any reas/objective person would be in fear of their life. B was in actual/subjective fear for his life. = justified lethal self defense

2) A points gun at B. B knows the gun is not loaded and doesnt possess a threat. B pulls out his own gun and shoots A.

- any reas person would be in fear of having a gun pointed at them. However, B did not have any actual fear bc he knew the gun was not loaded.

now this hypo is flawed a bit b/c i think technically the test for passing the reas person standard wouldnt be "would a reas person fear for their life
when a gun is pointed at them" but "would a reas person fear for their life when an unloaded gun is pointed at them".... but i tried. coming up w perfect hypos are hard.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Gary84Clark;1014324][B]I think it is reasonable to say Trayvon feared for his life when Z approached him. That would justify him beating Z up[/B], if that happened? They have a video where the police are with Z in his interview, its on abcnews.com. They tell Z if you had identified yourself to this child then we would not be here.[/quote]

Wow. Just wow. You're either a hypocrite or a f***'ing barbarian.

First, show me the law that says Z had to identify himself. Regarldless of whether he "should have", show me the law [I]requiring[/I] him to do so. Hindsight is 20/20.

TM justifiably feared for his life? Really?? Show me where ANYWHERE in the conversation with Jeanette that TM evidenced a fear of his life or even imminent physical harm.

BUT ... accepting your premise [I]arguendo[/I] -- following and verbally confronting TM legitimately put TM in fear for his life [B]but[/B] TM having Z pinned to the ground and inflicting the injuries evidenced by TM [I]did not[/I] put Z in reasonable fear of his own.

Don't look now, you're double standard is showing.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

to anyone arguing that zimmerman should be found completely innocent - watch his reenactment video.

joe has been hammering a point and it is a good one = the jury will have to base their verdict on the admissible evidence before them. so far most legal pundits think the defense is winning. i think man 1 or 2 is in play.

a reckless disregard for life but not enough to say it was willful or intentional.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014333]

First, show me the law that says Z had to identify himself. Regarldless of whether he "should have", show me the law [I]requiring[/I] him to do so. Hindsight is 20/20.

TM justifiably feared for his life? Really?? Show me where ANYWHERE in the conversation with Jeanette that TM evidenced a fear of his life or even imminent physical harm.

.[/quote]

i think only a detective or consultant said he should have identified himself and this wouldnt have happened. im guessing that is where this notion came from.

TM would not have to be in fear of death to justify using non-lethal self defense. He would only have to be in fear of bodily harm. having an adult follow you and corner you would put a person in reas fear that the person following you wanted to fight.

to justify lethal self-defense on an unarmed combatant is just not acceptable to me in this situation. maybe if its chuck norris on an 80 yr old, but not a 29 yr old and a person who just turned 17.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=over the mountain;1014336]i think only a detective or consultant said he should have identified himself and this wouldnt have happened. im guessing that is where this notion came from.

TM would not have to be in fear of death to justify using non-lethal self defense. He would only have to be in fear of bodily harm. having an adult follow you and corner you would put a person in reas fear that the person following you wanted to fight.

to justify lethal self-defense on an unarmed combatant is just not acceptable to me in this situation. maybe if its chuck norris on an 80 yr old, but not a 29 yr old and a person who just turned 17.[/quote]

If you're getting your ass beat and fear for your life...forget how you got there because it is irrelevant to your decision making at that point...then shooting someone who is unarmed is definitely in play. I know I would. A gun is reasonably equal force to "Oh no this guy is going to kill me with his bare hands". The real question as to this part of the trial is whether Z had real and reasonable cause to fear for his life. JR where does the burden stand on this type of issue. Does Z have to prove he was reasonably in fear or does the prosecution have to prove he wasn't?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014278]What do you mean "this outcome"? If the only fact you change is that T shoots Z, you still have much of the speculative issues presented. T claims he was in fear of his life but testimony places him on top of Z in "ground and pound" mode with Z yelling for help. Next thing we know, Z is dead. (assume also the other witnesses come out and say they see TM get off the ground with a prone Z next to him).

I think the case against TM would be stronger especially since his body showed no evidence of injury. But, essentially, and assuming TM asserts self-defense, you would have much the same issues - speculation as to who started the fight and what happened during it. Certainly, the underlying principles - burden of proof, legal elements of the crime charged and innocent until proven guilty would be applicable to TM just as they now apply to Z.

And to be clear - "a confrontation initiated by Z" is a generalization that encompasses both legal and illegal acts in this situation. Z can initiate a verbal confrontation. TM can initiate a verbal confrontation. [I]NEITHER[/I] can initiate a physical confrontation.

People can yell at you and aggressively taunt you in public. They can call you dirty names. They can call you the N word. They can call you a crazy cracker. They can insult your parents, sister and kids. They can make general threats of harm so long as they do so from a position where they can't reasonably be expected to carry out the threat (Shouting "I'm gonna kick your ass" from 10 feet away). They can stay at more than arms length and "flinch" as if to strike you. ...

You know what you (be you a teen, child or adult) can do in these situations? Yell back, call the cops or simply ignore it. [If they make a threat and then move to carry it out - that's different[I] e.g. [/I]saying they are going to kick your ass and then charging you. [I]While you would still have a duty to retreat[/I] (in MD) - you only need do so if you believe you can reasonably get to a safe place]



Those "technical details" are, again, what I like to refer to as "law" and "burden of proof".

Z, through his actions, initiated the "situation" of a verbal confrontation - there is no evidence as to who started the "situation" of a physical confrontation. Leading up to the physical confontation, Z - IMHO - clearly exercised bad judgment. Bad judgment, however, is not a crime. Initiating a physical attack is - and that "situation" may have been "started" by Z or TM.

Before sending Z to jail, the State bears the burden of proof and persuasion to show BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that Z committed all the elements of the crime for which he is accused.



Who has alleged he has authority to harass anyone?? True, much as you don't like it, Z was legally authorized to carry a concealed weapon in public spaces. Assuming Z was harassing folks, however, if that harrasment was limited to following people and verbally confronting them, the appropriate response is to CALL THE F'ING POLICE. YOU DO NOT get to take matters into your own hands.

DAMN - why is this such a hard concept for folks to comprehend. Had TM said to his friend, "I'll call you back, I gotta call the police some crazy cracker is followng me." Maybe, just maybe, it would have been straightened out quickly. Instead, we get macho wannabe crime stopper versus macho wannabe teen and a tragic outcome with nothing but speculation on the key elements of legal responsibilty.

I gotta say, the willingness and ease with which some of you think violence is a proper response to being challenged, "harrased" or otherwise inconvenienced is disconcerting. Why does violence exist? B/c people still fundamentally believe it is the right way to resolve personal problems.



Well, screw the trial then - the line for pitchforks and torches starts behind G84C.[/quote]

Joe first I appreciate you explaining everything with your expertise. seriously I do and glad your here to navigate this situation.

Second, Im not advocating violence to solve a thing. not a thing. But you know a macho guy walking around seeking out a confronation while armed is not a good thing. Throw an immature kid into the mix, its down right dangerous. Im more appauled some people think its a good idea for Zim to behaving like this.

Lastly, you know, as well as I, people lie all day in court. Ive personally seen a police officer lie under oath. witnessed it. Ive seen guilty people lie all day in court to save their butts. If Zim could take it back, im sure he would. He's using "my life in danger" as a defense only now because he's life is truely in danger from incarseration. The reason to pull that weapon was petty. And he killed a normal teenager. not a thug, a kid who he got in a skirmish with. He should have never drawn that weapon. Its appauling to me people handle a fist fight with a weapon.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1014327]What testimony are you basing that statement on?[/quote]

Jeantel testified that as he neared the home of his father's girlfriend, Martin tried to lose Zimmerman.

"And then he said, 'That N-word is still following me now,'" said Jeantel. "I asked him how the man looked like. He just told me the man looked 'creepy.' 'Creepy, white' -- excuse my language -- 'cracker. Creepy [expletive] cracker."
Jeantel says she heard Martin talking to Zimmerman in the background of the call.
"He said, 'Why are you following me for?' And I heard a hard-breathing man say, 'What you doing around here?'" said Jeantel.
Jeantel also said she heard a bump from Martin's headset hitting something and "wet grass sounds."
"I start hearing a little bit of Trayvon saying, 'Get off, get off!'" said Jeantel.

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/26/justice/zimmerman-trial/index.html]Key witness recounts Trayvon Martin's final phone call - CNN.com[/url]



I dont know if that supports martin being afraid for his life but certainly being afraid. a guy is following you, creepy is how i would feel as well as scared.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=over the mountain;1014332]TM would be guilty.

i see zimmerman getting man 1 or 2.

Z contributed to there being a confrontation. Z may have been in fear of his life subjectively but just getting punched a few times doesnt rise to the level of an objective "kill or be killed" situation.[/quote]

Z contributed to the verbal confrontation - sure. His contribution to the physical confrontation is simply unknown.

Also, you draw the factual conclusion that Z "was punched a few times" and the direct of Dr. Rao provides objective support for that factual conclusion. At the same time, I think the course of the fight is somewhat speculative beyond Z's injuries and Good's testimony. Again, the EMT's testimony about Z on the spot was that the injuries he received would probably put someone in reasonable fear of his life.

[quote=over the mountain;1014332]also you mentioned that it was unfavorable for the prosecutor to allow the professor witness say that a person needs to be subjective fear of death. to my understanding, while not helpful to the prosecutor, it is the correct recitation of law re lethal force self defense.

a person fear needs to be reasonable (objective = reas person in his position would think they are going to die) and subjective (the person actually thought they were going to die)

ill try to come up with a hypo to illustrate (im sure it will be flawed)

1) A points gun at B and says "i'm going to kill you". B thinks he is going to die. B pulls out his own gun and shoots A.

- any reas/objective person would be in fear of their life. B was in actual/subjective fear for his life. = justified lethal self defense

2) A points gun at B. B knows the gun is not loaded and doesnt possess a threat. B pulls out his own gun and shoots A.

- any reas person would be in fear of having a gun pointed at them. However, B did not have any actual fear bc he knew the gun was not loaded.

now this hypo is flawed a bit b/c i think technically the test for passing the reas person standard wouldnt be "would a reas person fear for their life
when a gun is pointed at them" but "would a reas person fear for their life when an unloaded gun is pointed at them".... but i tried. coming up w perfect hypos are hard.[/quote]

My point with the Prof. was that, while he may have correctly stated the law, why let a witness, friendly to the accused, do this (it's akin to letting OJ try on the gloves) instead of simply bringing it out in final argument. That way, instead having it manipulated against you, you get to couch it in a way consistent with your case. This was just not a witness I would have put on.

I get your analogy and don't think it is all that flawed. A modification that might make it more applicable would be, in the second case: B can't tell if gun is loaded, in the moment thinks it might be and shoots A. After the fact, a reasonable person who reviews the incident - w/out the gun being pointed at them - believe it obvious that the gun was unloaded. In that case, I [I]believe[/I], but am not positive, that the subjective belief is sufficient defense because the objective person has to place themselves in the shoes of person B and attempt to review it from the reasonableness from that position -- not as neutral observer. It seems to me, if person A engages in actions that create a subjective doubt as to fear of life, person A cannot then benefit from objective hindsight to say the B was unreasonable.

Here, through his statements to police, interviews on TV and in statements to friends, Z has consistently (with tangential inconsistencies) asserted his subjective belief that he was in fear for his life [I]during the fight[/I] - a subjective belief that, in concert with his injuries, is supported by the EMT's and Good's testimony. On the other hand, in hind sight, and with no knowledge of the exact specifics, neutral observers (Chico and G84C) see a simple fist-fight with one guy clearly losing but in a manner which doesn't appear to them to be life threatening. To me, finding someone guilty of a crime based on hindsight and speculation is patently unfair. Barring clear evidence that Z's subjective belief was patently unreasonable, I don't think the State has met its burden.

In light of Z's injuries, Good's testimony, and the testimony of the on-site EMT, I think the State simply has got to come up with more than Dr. Rao's speculative hindsight to prove Z's belief was unreasonable.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Chico23231;1014338]Joe first I appreciate you explaining everything with your expertise. seriously I do and glad your here to navigate this situation.

Second, Im not advocating violence to solve a thing. not a thing[B]. But you know a macho guy walking around seeking out a confronation while armed is not a good thing.[/B] Throw an immature kid into the mix, its down right dangerous. Im more appauled some people think its a good idea for Zim to behaving like this.

Lastly, you know, as well as I, people lie all day in court. Ive personally seen a police officer lie under oath. witnessed it. Ive seen guilty people lie all day in court to save their butts. If Zim could take it back, im sure he would. He's using "my life in danger" as a defense only now because he's life is truely in danger from incarseration. The reason to pull that weapon was petty. And he killed a normal teenager. not a thug, a kid who he got in a skirmish with. He should have never drawn that weapon. Its appauling to me people handle a fist fight with a weapon.[/quote]

How do you know he was seeking out a confrontation. His prior calls to the police the hold them he did not want to get involved personally.

In one of the calls, made on February 2, 2012, about three weeks before Martin's death, Zimmerman told the dispatcher he saw a black man walking around a neighbor's home. He said he also had seen this man walking around the neighborhood on trash days.
"I don't know what he's doing, I don't want to approach him, personally," said Zimmerman on the recording.

In another call made in October 2011, Zimmerman reported two "suspicious characters" who were "just hanging out, loitering" in his neighborhood. When the dispatcher asked if he can still see the suspects, Zimmerman said no because he "didn't want to attract attention" to himself.