Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

My points are clear and consistent. In hindsight, Trayvon should have never physically gotten involved with Zim. Like I said before, being followed, harrassed, by an armed creepy dude...Trayvon made a quick decision...he didnt know if he was being robbed, abducted, etc. Trayvon is not an adult and he made a decision that cost him his life...true. Death should be norm for his actions? No. And for the law to side with Zim and say this is justified with no penalty. Well we need to rethink alot of things and there should be protests.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014742]As I understand it, the lesser, incorporated, offense is always in play. Thus, manslaughter is in play.

Saden1 - what's your bet? As I said, my confidence level is low but once the pot use gets admitted, its increasing. Do you honestly think murder2 is in play at this point?

I will bet $200, cash money, that he is found innocent of murder 2.

As to manslaughter, $25. I think that accurately reflects my confidence level of each.

As an aside ... my first defense WTF moment since the knock knock joke - why call Tracy Martin ... all you do is give him a chance to explain away his denial about recognizing Trayvon's voice, which he did. Had they not called him and simply left him as a rebuttal witness, you get to discredit his "Serino got it wrong". As it is, rather than a blot on the prosecutor's case, he becomes a non-factor.[/quote]


I am saying noway he walks, either it's a mistrial or guilty. I'll take that $25 dollar bet...if he walks you win, he is convicted of manslaughter or above I win, if it's a mistrial it's a wash.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1014785]Which you've shown in abundance.



Zimmerman is up for 2nd degree murder. I will bet you $1,000 (to be paid to my [URL="http://www.kintera.org/faf/home/default.asp?ievent=1070058"]charity[/URL] of choice, when I win) that he doesn't get convicted of 2nd degree murder.

I will also add the rider that the loser (You, saden1) has to use the following in their sig:
[U][B]
Hysterical bed wetter[/B][/U]

You can pick a sig for me in the unlikely event that I lose.

This will remain in place for the entirety of this football season.[/quote]

Zimmerman is up for 2nd degree murder and manslaughter. Putting 1K on 2nd degree is just silly. Since you seem confident he will walk I will take $100 on at least manslaughter though. If he walks you win, if he is convicted of manslaughter or above I win, if it's a mistrial it's a wash.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014744]Really? Generalizations as proof of motive and actions? Can you use a few more emotionally charged words in your description while claiming "the heart doesn't come into play". Rather than actual analysis of specific facts, you're going to ignore the unhelpful and speculative facts brought out at trial and simply paint the picture of what happened that night with a broad brush?

I thought more highly of you.[/quote]

Motive and action are pretty clear cut. A wannabe cop follows a kid of particular skin-tone around, violates all sorts of protocols and ends up shooting a kid. Circumstantial evidence is admissible in court and it boggles the mind to thing that a neighborhood watchman can get out of his car to look at street signs in a neighborhood with 3 street signs, make inconsistent claims how where he was jumped from, shoot and kill the kid he is stalking and claim self-defense.

We simply can't afford to set a precedence where we allow people to do what Zimmerman did and claim self-defense. I believe the prosecutor has laid out the case and I believe justice will be done and you will end up paying me.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=saden1;1014805]Zimmerman is up for 2nd degree murder and manslaughter. Putting 1K on 2nd degree is just silly. Since you seem confident he will walk I will take $100 on at least manslaughter though. If he walks you win, if he is convicted of manslaughter or above I win, if it's a mistrial it's a wash.[/quote]

Zimmerman is charged with 2nd degree murder.

My offer stands. If you're so confident of his guilt why are you calling 2nd degree charge 'silly'?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1014809]Zimmerman is charged with 2nd degree murder.

My offer stands. If you're so confident of his guilt why are you calling 2nd degree charge 'silly'?[/quote]

Weak....you really are a mental midget.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=saden1;1014810]Weak....you really are a mental midget.[/quote]

And you come across as an hysterical bed wetter who is incapable of detaching your bias from the facts presented.

I think I liked it better when you were throwing around curse words like a jilted teenage girl when this thread first started.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Chico23231;1014795]Hey fight or flight response to someone armed who coulda been trying to rob him(trayvon). Trayvon shouldnt have done it, it was quick response to an unnormal situation. Remember Trayvon is dead he didnt chance to collect the facts after the incident. [/quote]

"Fight or flight". No. Flight. Period. "someone armed" - Did Martin think Zimm was armed? Any evidence of that? He mention that to his friend on the phone? (Hint: No). Is there evidence [I]beyond a reasonable doubt[/I] that Martin was in [I]imminent[/I] fear of physical assault before the fight ensued?

Trayvon is dead. If the reverse were true, and Martin claimed Zimm drew his gun, there was a tussle and Zimm ended up dead, guess what - Zimm isn't around to dispute it and Martin is free. Period.

[quote] I know its a novel concept to some, but black kids can be freaked out by old white guys following them. I guess the more accepted way of thinking is a young skittle toting child-thug Trayvon causing old white ladies to grip their purses a little tighter as he passes. Thats not the case here, and where the young thug totes skittles, the creepy coward Zim totes a pistol. [/quote]

You completely lost me Chico. You keep playing the race card, making assumptions about motives and using emotionally charged language that borders on demagougery. If Martin was "freaked out by [an] old white guy following him", that's a big old tough sh** [By the way, how do they feel about "white hispanics"?]. Martin took matters into his own hands instead of calling the cops. In doing so, any chance at [I]knowing[/I] what happened that night was ended. [BTW: If Zimm is such a f'ing "creepy coward" why not just pull the gun at the outset? Care to explain Zimm's thought pattern on that, 'cause it's clear you have a telepathic link to Zimm's thoughts to know them with such certainty].

You want to thug out. Fine. Guess what, when you walk through my neighborhood, this creepy white guy is going to be watching you b/c I have personally witnessed too many "thugged out" teens/young adults racing away from broken car windows, vandalism and outright assualt of my neighbors.

BTW - Did you read the testimony of Zimm's physical trainer - the guy call Zimm "soft" and physically inept and that was after a year of training. To me that creates some reasonable doubt that his self-defense claim is [I]without[/I] merit.

[quote=Chico23231;1014795]We good if the picture was vise versa? We good if thuged out, armed, Trayvon asking Zim what he up too and Zim has the skittles? Justice would be blind and impartial? Yeah, not in this country.[/quote]

If "thugged out armed" Martin claims self-defense, can provide evidence that he was screaming for his life (or create, more accurately, cast reasonable doubt upon the prosecutor's claim it wasn't him screaming for his life), has an eyewitness who has him pinned on the ground by Zimm, can demonstrate injuries consistent with his description of how he was losing the fight, and consistently describes the fight to police and friends and the manner in which he was in fear of his life ...

Then yeah, Martin gets the same benefit of doubt that to which Zimm is entittled.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Chico23231;1014799]My points are clear and consistent. In hindsight, Trayvon should have never physically gotten involved with Zim. Like I said before, being followed, harrassed, by an armed creepy dude...Trayvon made a quick decision...he didnt know if he was being robbed, abducted, etc. Trayvon is not an adult and he made a decision that cost him his life...true. Death should be norm for his actions? No. And for the law to side with Zim and say this is justified with no penalty. Well we need to rethink alot of things and there should be protests.[/quote]

Ignoring for the moment your generic and consistent assumptons and mischaracterizations of the facts and evidence ... You honestly believe a "not guilty" verdict means the law "side[d] with Zimm"? Would mean Zimm's actions were "justified"? Where do you get that sh**? A not guilty finding says [U][I]neither[/I][/U] and you should damn well get that straight.

[I]All[/I] a not guilty finding says is - "The State can't prove [I]beyond a reasonable doubt[/I] Zimm is guilty of the crime that the State has alleged he committed." Nothing, absolutely nothing, more than that. The same standard would apply to Martin if the roles were reversed. I hope to God it will always be applicable to those accused of crimes.

A finding that the facts don't meet lawfully required burden of proof is a damn far sight removed from an affirmatively "siding" with Zimm or affirmatively saying he was "justified".

Is that really so hard a concept to grasp?

I weep for the rule of law. Pitchforks and torches all around.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Why do we think Trayvon got into a physical altercation with Zim?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=saden1;1014808]Motive and action are pretty clear cut. A wannabe cop follows a kid of particular skin-tone around, violates all sorts of protocols and ends up shooting a kid. Circumstantial evidence is admissible in court and it boggles the mind to thing that a neighborhood watchman can get out of his car to look at street signs in a neighborhood with 3 street signs, make inconsistent claims how where he was jumped from, shoot and kill the kid he is stalking and claim self-defense.

We simply can't afford to set a precedence where we allow people to do what Zimmerman did and claim self-defense. I believe the prosecutor has laid out the case and I believe justice will be done and you will end up paying me.[/quote]

... and I don't think we should set the precedent for convicting people of crimes w/out requiring the State to prove all the lawful requirements of their case beyond a reasonable doubt. It's just not as simple and neat as you and Chico would like to make it.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Chico23231;1014818]Why do we think Trayvon got into a physical altercation with Zim?[/quote]

I guess that would be the State's case to prove - BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT - if they want to send Zimmerman to jail.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014817]Ignoring for the moment your generic and consistent assumptons and mischaracterizations of the facts and evidence ... [B]You honestly believe a "not guilty" verdict means the law "side[d] with Zimm"? Would mean Zimm's actions were "justified"? Where do you get that sh**? A not guilty finding says [U][I]neither[/I][/U] and you should damn well get that straight.[/B][I]All[/I] a not guilty finding says is - "The State can't prove [I]beyond a reasonable doubt[/I] Zimm is guilty of the crime that the State has alleged he committed." Nothing, absolutely nothing, more than that. The same standard would apply to Martin if the roles were reversed. I hope to God it will always be applicable to those accused of crimes.

A finding that the facts don't meet lawfully required burden of proof is a damn far sight removed from an affirmatively "siding" with Zimm or affirmatively saying he was "justified".

Is that really so hard a concept to grasp?

I weep for the rule of law. Pitchforks and torches all around.[/quote]

I weep for the rule of law and history of injustice throughout this country as well.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Chico23231;1014818]Why do we think Trayvon got into a physical altercation with Zim?[/quote]

Because all of the evidence so far shows that Martin challenged Zimmerman's supposed harassment or pursuit by popping up on him.

Zimmerman says he lost sight of Martin and was then 'ambushed', which I think is a misuse of the word. Zimmerman was more likely surprised by Martin who decided to front up the 'creepy-assed cracker'.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Chico23231;1014822]I weep for the rule of law and history of injustice throughout this country as well.[/quote]

So, to remedy the past injustices resulting from people ignoring the rule of law, we should ignore it in this case as well?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014824]So, to remedy the past injustices resulting from people ignoring the rule of law, we should ignore it in this case as well?[/quote]

No, lets start by getting this one right. Zimmerman Guilty

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014817]Ignoring <SNIP>[/quote]

Well stated, JR.

I hope that some people on this site never get to sit on a jury.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Chico23231;1014826]No, lets start by getting this one right. Zimmerman Guilty[/quote]

<point_laugh>

[IMG]http://www.zgeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/monty_python_angry_mob.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

"these assholes, they always get away"

-Zim

Not this time buddy, you got'tem.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Chico23231;1014826]No, lets start by getting this one right. Zimmerman Guilty[/quote]

A verdict you decided on long before the trial started. You're mind has been closed to any alternative since the first report that "gun-toting white guy shoots little black kid in hoodie while he was eating skittles".

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

I like that quote above, because in Zimmerman's mind he's already convicted Trayvon.

And it was time to dish out the punishment.

That's justice for ya

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014819]... and I don't think we should set the precedent for convicting people of crimes w/out requiring the State to prove all the lawful requirements of their case beyond a reasonable doubt. It's just not as simple and neat as you and Chico would like to make it.[/quote]

There is enough to convict, you dont seem to agree.

This ain't cowboy country

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Chico23231;1014831]I like that quote above, because in Zimmerman's mind he's already convicted Trayvon.

And it was time to dish out the punishment.

That's justice for ya[/quote]

I shall defer to your incredible ability to read minds and acertain others' thoughts with incrediblle clarity and 100% certainty. It is a gift for I - even if I think what you say is more likely true than not - can only speculate as to what GZ was thinking and, thus, reasonably doubt the accuracy of my own conclusions.

Again, I recommend the [I]Ox-Bow Incident[/I].

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014836]I shall defer to your incredible ability to read minds and acertain others' thoughts with incrediblle clarity and 100% certainty. It is a gift for I - even if I think what you say is more likely true than not - can only speculate as to what GZ was thinking and, thus, reasonably doubt the accuracy of my own conclusions.

Again, I recommend the [I]Ox-Bow Incident[/I].[/quote]

Seriously Joe? So just disregard that statement? Give me a break. The trial suffers from lack of evidence to find out why and how, but this statement given clearly over the phone is an indication what Zim was thinking. He's convicting Trayvon in his mind and he's tired of people getting away with crime. Its intent. period

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Chico23231;1014829]"these assholes, they always get away"

-Zim

Not this time buddy, you got'tem.[/quote]

He was talking about the people in the past that have broken into a house, car, etc... and I agree most of the time they do get away. Funy you seem to point that out but ignore the racial slur of Martin.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=firstdown;1014839]He was talking about the people in the past that have broken into a house, car, etc... and I agree most of the time they do get away. Funy you seem to point that out but ignore the racial slur of Martin.[/quote]

FD, was Trayvon breaking into houses, cars, etc?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

there's enough credible evidence for a jury to find him guilty or not guilty.

imo it comes down to who the jury believes and how much weight they give each piece of evidence.

if reasonable minds can disagree does that mean that reasonable doubt exists?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=saden1;1014835]There is enough to convict, you dont seem to agree.

This ain't cowboy country[/quote]

I have never doubted "there is enough to convict". People have been convicted of much worse on much less. On the other hand, I strongly disagree that the State has eliminated all reasonable doubt as to:

(1) Who initiated the conflict; and
(2) Whether Zimm's claim of self-defense was reasonable.

As with Chico, it's hard to consider your opinion as anything other than a foregone conclusion based on your initial and continuing characterizations of the individuals in this matter, your seeming refusal to look critically at your initial conclusions and your acceptance of several speculative assertions as fact coupled with your complete disregard for other facts, admitted into evidence, that are favorable to GZ.

Without completely changing the known facts, it seems to me that, for you and Chico at least, there is not, never has been and could never be, any scenario under which there could be any doubt as to what happened and how it happened on the night in question. Rather, IMHO, you have consistently filled in the speculative blanks based on your perceptions and assumptions of the individuals involved.

The jury may do the same thing and, again, IMHO, [I]MUST[/I] do the same thing to convict.

I have always been open to a guilty verdict on either charge. Based on what I have seen, however, the State's has failed miserably at eliminating all reasonable doubt on the key elements the enumerated above.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=over the mountain;1014843]there's enough credible evidence for a jury to find him guilty or not guilty.

imo it comes down to who the jury believes and how much weight they give each piece of evidence.

[B]if reasonable minds can disagree does that mean that reasonable doubt exists?[/B][/quote]

I believe that is the definition of reasonable doubt.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Chico23231;1014838]Seriously Joe? So just disregard that statement? Give me a break. The trial suffers from lack of evidence to find out why and how, but this statement given clearly over the phone is an indication what Zim was thinking. He's convicting Trayvon in his mind and he's tired of people getting away with crime. Its intent. period[/quote]

"[I][B]This statement ... is an indication of what Zim was thinking[/B][/I]." Absolutely, I agree. The key being "an indication".

"[I][B]He's convicting Travon in his mind and he's tired of people getting away with crime[/B][/I].": [I]Convicting[/I] Trayvon? Maybe, maybe not. I agree, it is more likely than not that - at that moment - he is assuming Martin is another vandal/criminal in the neighborhood. Further, it is more likely than not that this was not just a momentary, passing belief as the night proceeded. BUT ... So what? Was this conclusion, in and of itself, illegal? Based on his past experiences and the fact that recent break-ins had been perpetrated by black youths, was it a perception with no basis? It may have been incorrect, but was it irrational?

At the same time, unlikely as it seems, we both may be completely wrong in the assumptions we are making ... it may be a simple statement of frustration of the crimes he has experienced in his neighborhood unrelated to Trayvon - He didn't, for example, say "This kid always gets away" or "This is the guy and he always gets away" or any of a number of other statements which would more clearly state what you assert.

"[I][B]It's intent. Period[/B][/I]." Really, of what? That he is going to stop Trayvon from getting away? That he has specifically angry at Trayvon as opposed to others "who got away"? That he is angry that others actually did get away? That he will use whatever force necessary to restrain Trayvon until the police get here? Even it is a statement evidencing one of these - or some other - intent, how long does he hold this specific intent identified after this brief statement? Ten seconds? A minute? All the way through the engagment? Is it possible the specific intent you think he felt morphed into a different less sinister intent prior to the engagement. Does [I]your[/I] every momentary expression anger and/or frustration guide your thoughts for an entire evening. Have you ever said something in the heat of the moment then, five minutes later, realized you may have been wrong?

To me, extrapolating anything beyond GZ's immediate belief that Trayvon is likely one of the kids responsible for recent break-ins is a HUGE speculative leap from the (more likely than not) reasonable assumption of GZ's belief which you state. We don't know if, in the moments before confronting TM, he questioned that belief - you certainly think he did not. For you, the one brief statement of anger and frustration is enough to assume GZ carried it on throughout the engagment. This is where you rely on speculation as to GZ's state of mind to fill in gaps in the events.

Again, to me, that statement is indicative of, and only of, exactly what you initially assert, anger and frustration over recent burglaries and a belief that TM is likely one of those responsible. That, however, in and of itself, is not indicative of an intent to physically assault or confront Martin. It may be, it may also be indicative of an intent to simply make sure he never loses sight of Martin. Hell, it may even be indicative of a resignation that "they" are likely to get away again this time and he is powerless to prevent it.

You read what you want into it, you are entitled to do so. Just don't tell me that you conclusion is anything better than an educated guess based on your personal perceptions of the individuals involved. You perceive, and have always perceived, GZ a gun-toting coward and TM as an innocent skittles eating kid and any gap in the timeline or thought process is filed in based on that perspective. Certainly, that is what it has seemed to me.

You're angry that TM died and it appears the guy you think is ultimately responsible [I]may[/I] get off with no jail time. Fine, that is an entirely understandable emotion.

To me, however, regardless of the ensuing frustration [I]no one[/I] should go to jail based on another's educated guesses.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Joe you ever practice in Va?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Nope. Not licensed to practice there.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

FYI - GZ's forensic expert is testifying. Very good stuff. Rat, you'll like it - he just blows off anything unprovable through the scientific method ... the guy is practically robotic.

[url=http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/07/09/george-zimmerman-trial-trayvon-martin-day-11]Doctor details how Martin bled to death | HLNtv.com[/url]

[quote]1:51 p.m. ET: Di Maio says he can't say if the gun was pulled out of the holster by Zimmerman, just that there was a shot to Martin's chest.

"You can't tell that by any scientific method," said Di Maio.

1:54 p.m. ET: Di Maio can't say for sure what angle Martin was positioned at on top of Zimmerman, just that Martin was over Zimmerman when he was shot. He doesn't believe the two were standing at the time of the shooting, based on the evidence. He agrees that Martin could have been pulling away from Zimmerman when he was shot.[/quote]

...

[quote]2:25 p.m. ET: "I’m not going to base my opinions on the witnesses because witnesses are wrong all the time," said Di Maio. He says he bases his opinions on the evidence and facts.

2:28 p.m. ET: West is describing the testimony of another witness who said Zimmerman was on top and Martin was face-down when the shot was fired.

"No sir, it's not possible," said Di Maio. West says this is another example of a witness who had good intentions but got it wrong.

2:29 p.m. ET: Di Maio says another eye witness's testimony, John Good, is consistent with the evidence. Good said Martin was on top of Zimmerman before the shot was fired, in a "ground and pound" type of position, striking Zimmerman.[/quote]

Solid witness. Based on the responses, he seems a much more credible guy than Bao. Also, prosecution's cross not bad - limited and not going for any big points. Just some helpful puzzle pieces they can use in their closing.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014845]I have never doubted "there is enough to convict". People have been convicted of much worse on much less. On the other hand, I strongly disagree that the State has eliminated all reasonable doubt as to:

(1) Who initiated the conflict; and
(2) Whether Zimm's claim of self-defense was reasonable.

As with Chico, it's hard to consider your opinion as anything other than a foregone conclusion based on your initial and continuing characterizations of the individuals in this matter, your seeming refusal to look critically at your initial conclusions and your acceptance of several speculative assertions as fact coupled with your complete disregard for other facts, admitted into evidence, that are favorable to GZ.

Without completely changing the known facts, it seems to me that, for you and Chico at least, there is not, never has been and could never be, any scenario under which there could be any doubt as to what happened and how it happened on the night in question. Rather, IMHO, you have consistently filled in the speculative blanks based on your perceptions and assumptions of the individuals involved.

The jury may do the same thing and, again, IMHO, [I]MUST[/I] do the same thing to convict.

I have always been open to a guilty verdict on either charge. Based on what I have seen, however, the State's has failed miserably at eliminating all reasonable doubt on the key elements the enumerated above.[/quote]

In a self-defense case it is upon the claimant to prove they were in fact defending themselves from imminent danger. Who stalked who and who fired what and who died is self-evident and all the state has to show in a self-defense case is that there is probable cause that Zimmerman was looking for trouble and acted recklessly to get a conviction. Can they get a 2nd degree conviction? Maybe. Can they get manslaughter? Absolutely.

The defense hasn't proven that Zimmerman was defending himself. All they have shown is that he sustained a bruised head and bloody nose after stalking the victim and an altercation ensued. I don't believe that to be sufficient evidence for letting him walk. You cant create a situation and then peripherally claim self-defense

[url=http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-case-the-five-principles-of-the-law-of-self-defense/]Zimmerman Case: The Five Principles of the Law of Self Defense[/url]

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014858]FYI - GZ's forensic expert is testifying. Very good stuff. Rat, you'll like it - he just blows off anything unprovable through the scientific method ... the guy is practically robotic.
[/quote]

It's been a fascinating case, I have enjoyed watching the Defense do their thing, except for that opening.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=saden1;1014860]In a self-defense case it is upon the claimant to prove they were in fact defending themselves from imminent danger. Who stalked who and who fired what and who died is self-evident and all the state has to show in a self-defense case is that there is probable cause that Zimmerman was looking for trouble and acted recklessly to get a conviction. Can they get a 2nd degree conviction? Maybe. Can they get manslaughter? Absolutely.

The defense hasn't proven that Zimmerman was defending himself. All they have shown is that he[B] sustained a bruised head and bloody nose after stalking the victim [/B]and an altercation ensued. I don't believe that to be sufficient evidence for letting him walk. [B]You cant create a situation and then peripherally claim self-defense[/B]

[URL="http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-case-the-five-principles-of-the-law-of-self-defense/"]Zimmerman Case: The Five Principles of the Law of Self Defense[/URL][/quote]

He had a broken nose and bruises don't bleed and your really reaching calling what Zimmerman did stalking. Also you can creata a situation and claim self defense.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=saden1;1014860]In a self-defense case it is upon the claimant to prove they were in fact defending themselves from imminent danger. Who stalked who and who fired what and who died is self-evident and[B] all the state has to show in a self-defense case is that there is probable cause that Zimmerman was looking for trouble and acted recklessly to get a conviction.[/B] Can they get a 2nd degree conviction? Maybe. Can they get manslaughter? Absolutely.[/quote]

Wrong, wrong, wrong wroooong. Wrong wrong wrong wrooooong. [Y'all know the clip].

I already covered this once, so let's review:

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014361]Self-defence is an affirmative defense meaning that the burden is [I]initially[/I] on Z to assert but, once asserted and a [I]prima facia[/I] case made, it is up to the State to disprove it[I] beyond a reasonable doubt[/I]. Further, Z doesn't need to testify or put on any evidence of the issue, Z need only claim that the evidence presented by the prosecution "fairly generates" the issue of self defense.

Maryland law on the issue:
A jury instruction improperly placed the burden of persuasion on the issue of self defense upon defendant [B]because self-defense was fairly generated by the evidence[/B] and the burden was upon the State to negate self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
...

Florida law is probably very similar and I would suggest that "the issue [of self-defense] has been generated by the [prosecution's] evidence". Thus, at this point, it is the State's burden to demonstrate [I]beyond a reasonable doubt [/I]that Z's subjective belief was unreasonable. Again, I just don't see that.[/quote]

So, to be sure, I looked it up. As I assumed, Florida law is essentially the same:

"In a criminal prosecution the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts from the State and, as a result, when self-defense is properly at issue, the state effectively has the burden to prove that defendant was not acting in self-defense during the commission of the criminal act."

[quote=saden1;1014860][B]The defense hasn't proven that Zimmerman was defending himself. [/B]All they have shown is that he sustained a bruised head and bloody nose after stalking the victim and an altercation ensued. I don't believe that to be sufficient evidence for letting him walk.[/quote]

Again, ignoring your assumptions of facts not proven and your speculative characterizations ...

ZIMMERMAN DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE HE ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE. THE STATE MUST [I][B]PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT HE DID NOT[/B][/I] . Innocent until proven guilty - beyond a reasonable doubt. Lordy, how many times do I have to restate this simple, fundamental principal of our legal system.

By the way, and to preempt any silly assertions that "Well, GZ's self-defense isn't 'properly at issue' because he hasn't proved it" remark from saden or someone else - if the State thought that a [I]prima facia[/I] claim of self-defense claim [I]wasn't[/I] generated by the evidence, they would have brought a murder 1 charge against GZ. By bringing the murder 2 charge instead, the State acknowledges that the evidence has generated a self-defense claim but they assert it was not valid. As such, they must now [I]prove[/I] its invalidity BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

Sorry for "yelling" but the wilfull ignorance being exhibited in this thread is getting me testy.

[quote=saden1;1014860]You cant create a situation and then peripherally claim self-defense.[url=http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-case-the-five-principles-of-the-law-of-self-defense/]Zimmerman Case: The Five Principles of the Law of Self Defense[/url][/quote]

Again, you're assertion that GZ "create[d] a situation" glosses over the key issues of the case that are in dispute. Further, the claim of self-defense is not "peripheral" - what an idiotic statement. It is central to the events of that evening and sufficiently in dispute so as to be acknowledged by the State's indictment.

All you are doing is restating your initial bias and speculation and throwing in an extra helping of ignorance ... but, hey, that's sounds like an excellent basis to put people in jail.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

What a beat-down!

May I suggest, saden1, you quit while you're behind? You're looking more and more like a one legged man in an ass kicking contest.

This is almost as much fun as the actual trial.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Here's the Florida pattern jury instructions on the issue:

[quote]A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent, one, imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or, two, the imminent commission of aggravated battery against himself or another.

* * *

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense, [B]you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty. [/B]However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe the defendant is innocent. [B]The presumption stays with the defendant, as to each material allegation in the information, through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt.[/B] To overcome the defendant's presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of proving the crime with which the defendant is charged was committed and the defendant is the person who committed the crime. [B]The defendant is not required to present evidence or prove anything[/B].[/quote]

emphasis mine.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=saden1;1014802]I am saying noway he walks, either it's a mistrial or guilty. I'll take that $25 dollar bet...if he walks you win, he is convicted of manslaughter or above I win, if it's a mistrial it's a wash.[/quote]


Can I get in on the action?

Same as above, except for $50.