Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

One of the comments from a article about the trial.


[quote]The reason the defense is only going to take half the time is because the prosecution did half the work for them. [/quote]


Reading the stuff Joe has said up here, I think that guy's comment hit the nail on the head.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

As an aside, today I was assigned my third tort defense case of the year involving a teenager crossing a major highway at a non-intersection and being struck and killed. Their ages were 14, 16 and the most recent a 17 year old homecoming queen. Each was tragic, each involved bad decision making by several people and each was avoidable by the teen. In each case, criminal charges against the driver were considered and rejected. In the case of the 14 year old, the driver was prosecuted for a DUI and spent 3 months in prison but was not charged with manslaughter b/c the police believed the accident to be unavoidable [I]i.e.[/I] even had he not been intoxicated he would have hit the child.

Martin's death was a tragedy, people want someone to blame. Is Zimmerman civilly liable? Maybe. A wrongful death claim will be filed (just as it was in OJ). In that case, Zimmerman [I]will[/I] bear the burden of proving self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

I only bring this out to demonstrate that death and tragedy happen. Often. Too often. Not all result in show trials. You think the mother of the 14 year-old killed by a drunk driver had no problem being told "Sorry ma'am, we know your son was killed by a drunk driver but, unfortunately, it was your son's own fault"? I guarrantee you she did.

Here, the question is do we know enough to imprison an person. As society, we have said that, regardless of the tragic results, we will not compound tragedies by acting out of vengance. Instead, and in order to temper our need for vengance, we have a system that is designed (although it does not always work that way) such that we will allow 99 guilty men to go free rather than subject one innocent man to imprisonment. It often leads to deeply unsatisfying results but it is, to me, the right way for a society to mete out punishment. Otherwise, mob rule, lynchings and vigalantism will become the substitute for "justice".

Further, there is recourse for those harmed by others, we as a society may not punish a [I]suspected[/I] criminal but they can be sued by the person they have wronged. Often such suits are pointless b/c the suspected criminal has no assets, but, in a case such as this, there is the opportunity for real recourse through civil action.

Sorry for the rambling. A beautiful young woman was killed b/c several people (including her) made bad decisions. It simply saddens me and gets me all philosophical.

Hug your kids everyday. At least twice.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014941]Is [B]Martin[/B] civilly liable? Maybe. A wrongful death claim will be filed (just as it was in OJ). In that case, [B]Martin[/B] [I]will[/I] bear the burden of proving self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
[/quote]

You meant Zimmerman, JR?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

^^ Yes. Thanks. Will edit for correction.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014870]Wrong, wrong, wrong wroooong. Wrong wrong wrong wrooooong. [Y'all know the clip].

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



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."



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.



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.[/quote]


Prove might have been the wrong word to use, perhaps show would be more appropriate. I am saying a self-defense claim is an extraordinary claim and as such there is a greater burden on the defense than in a typical criminal trial. The prosecutor has 5 angles of attack that the defense must show there is a reasonable cause to doubt each point of attack.

As for murder 1 we don't need to go there because it doesn't apply in this case.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=mlmpetert;1014877]Can I get in on the action?

Same as above, except for $50.[/quote]

Done!

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1014873]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.[/quote]


It's hot as hell outside and my balls are sweaty.

[QUOTE=saden1;1014949]It's hot as hell outside and my balls are sweaty.[/QUOTE]

Fresh Balls, it's a great product:

[IMG]http://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSFh7Q1octxZBng70rsSNWK_kKhXuOwGJypsemtuQMvFALvX_do[/IMG]
[IMG]http://coolmaterial.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/fresh-balls-lg.jpg[/IMG]

Not sure why they have to say it's for men on the packaging......

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1014873]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.[/quote]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH39nI8ZerQ]The Black Night Fight -Monty Python And The Holy Grail - YouTube[/ame]

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Things that make you go [URL="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2359517/Documents-Little-known-Justice-Department-unit-provided-support-protest-deployment-Florida-initial-Trayvon-Martin-unrest.html#ixzz2YfEg0ph2"]"Hmmmmm"[/URL]:

[I]Documents published online Wednesday by a conservative watchdog group show that the Community Relations Service, an arm of the U.S. Justice Department, spent taxpayer dollars to help organize and implement plans for the initial string of rallies in Sanford, Florida following the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

The protests were openly hostile to George Zimmerman, the volunteer neighborhood watch organizer who killed Martin, 17, after a struggle. Zimmerman is currently on trial in a Florida courtroom, charged with second-degree murder.

Its mandate includes 'assist[ing] State and local units of government, private and public organizations, and community groups with preventing and resolving racial and ethnic tensions, incidents, and civil disorders, and in restoring racial stability and harmony.'

Some of the Trayvon Martin protests, however, stoked racial animosity, with Black Panther Party members and the Rev. Al Sharpton suggesting that Zimmerman, a Latino man, was an example of white-on-black violence.

'These documents detail the extraordinary intervention by the Justice Department in the pressure campaign leading to the prosecution of George Zimmerman,' said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

'My guess is that most Americans would rightly object to taxpayers paying government employees to help organize racially-charged demonstrations.'
[/I][I]
Obama: 'If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon'

<vomit>
[/I]

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=saden1;1014947][B]Prove might have been the wrong word to use[/B], perhaps show would be more appropriate. I am saying a self-defense claim is an extraordinary claim and as such there is a greater burden on the defense than in a typical criminal trial. The prosecutor has 5 angles of attack that the defense must show there is a reasonable cause to doubt each point of attack.

As for murder 1, we don't need to go there because it doesn't apply in this case.[/quote]

I swear, I am going to start yelling again.

"Prove [I]might[/I] have been the wrong word"? YES. IT WAS. In fact, it is a [I]blatantly[/I] wrong word. It is in every way incorrect and inapplicable in every sense to the State's case against GZ. "Show"??? Way to try and pull your sh** from the fire and still burn your hand. It's not a question of degree. Zimmerman does not need to "show" anything at this point.

BY THE STATE'S ADMISSION, self defense is at issue in this matter and the State bears the burden of persuasion to demonstrate the claim invalid. Self-defense is not an "extraordinary claim"?? What the f*** does that mean? Self-defense is a common defense in any crime alleging physical harm to another. IT IS A F***ING ELEMENT OF THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM!

[I]With nothing more from GZ[/I], and based on the indictment, the burden is entirely on the State to show - [I]BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT[/I] - that one of the five elements of self-defense is invalid. [Did you read the jury instruction saying that the burden of persuasion never switches, it is always on the State?]

But ... if you insist ... let’s look at the law and the evidence and ask “Has the State proved [I]any one[/I] of these elements to be invalid beyond a reasonable doubt?" [NOTE: If the State does do so, then, [I]and only then,[/I] would GZ need to submit rebuttal evidence to, as you say "prove reasonable doubt". Before GZ need do anything, however, the State must eliminate all reasonable doubt from one or more of the elements].

Preliminarily, the State has alleged GZ inappropriately exercised his right to self-defense and, thus, is guilty of murder2 with its incorporated charge of manslaughter. Based on the evidence presented to date, what possible reasonable doubts could exist as to GZ's use of deadly force in self-defense? First, let's take a look at the elements of self-defense. Per your article, the elements of self-defense are:

(1) [U]Innocence[/U]: You cannot initiate a physical confrontation and then claim you are acting in self-defense (unless your opponents actions allow you to “regain your innocence”).

(2) [U]Imminence[/U]: Self defense, the right to use violence is only acceptable when threatened with imminent physical harm.

(3) [U]Proportionality[/U]: In exercising your right of self-defense, you may only use force proportional to that being used against you.

(4) [U]Avoidance[/U]: Before invoking your right to self-defense, you must retreat if a safe route of retreat exists.

(5) [U]Reasonableness[/U]: Your perceptions and conduct in self-defense were those of a reasonable and prudent person under the same or similar circumstances.

So, there are the elements. Does the admitted evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) show any one of them to be conclusively – [I]i.e.[/I] beyond a reasonable doubt - invalid?

[I]Innocence:[/I] To my knowledge the only evidence that could even be interpreted as GZ initiating the physical confrontation is Jeantel’s testimony that she heard Martin say “Get off … Get off” coupled with the facts that GZ was following TM and verbally confronted TM. In contrast, the prosecutor has also introduce evidence showing that GZ has consistently indicated that Martin struck first. This is at, best, a “he said/she said” situation where two people give differing versions of how the fight was initiated [I]and[/I] both versions were introduced by the State! I think reasonable doubt abounds as to who was the individual that turned an angry verbal confrontation into a physical confrontation.

[I]Imminence: [/I] For this case, as I see it, imminence and innocence are practically one and the same. The prosecution, again, introduced evidence that Martin approached GZ, struck GZ and continued the fight unabated. The State also introduced evidence exists to demonstrate that GZ’s stated estimates of the timing is off (through comparison of the timing on his calls versus Jeantel’s). However, the fight and its lead are, for all intents and purposes, unobserved. As such, there is no evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) to conclusively show how the physical confrontation was initiated and its course through the first 30 seconds or so. Given the admitted evidence, it [I]may[/I] have happened the way the State asserts, it may have happened as described by GZ's admitted statements or it may have happend in entirely different manner. No evidence submitted, that I am aware of, absolutely precludes either the State's, GZ's or some other version of the nights events. As such, reasonable doubt abounds.

[I]Proportionality[/I]: This, of course, is the crux of the matter. Has the State shown beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ use of deadly force was not-proportional to the force being used against him. As I said in prior posts, if this was GZ’s burden to prove, my analysis would be different. However, it is not his burden. It is the State’s burden [I]to eliminate all reasonable doubts [/I]as to the reasonableness of GZ's asserted fear. From your article:

[quote]The success of the claim Zimmerman’s narrative will surely be a function of the unremitting nature of Martin’s attack—straddling the prone Zimmerman and punching him “MMA-style” even after Zimmerman was clearly no longer any apparent threat and was, by eye-witness account, screaming for help—and the extensiveness of Zimmerman’s injuries as evidenced by medical reports and contemporaneous photos.[/quote]

Even removing the argumentative phrases regarding "unremitting nature", "clearly no longer a threat" and "the extensiveness of", in light of the above facts --all of which have been admitted into evidence -- and any reasonable inferences drawn from them, show me evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that [I]no[/I] person in GZ’s position would be in fear for his life. Particularly in light of the additional evidence from the defense that GZ was “soft” and physically inept in a fight.

[There is fundamental legal principle called the “fragile egg defendant” – if I unjustifiable strike someone with minimal force and break his leg b/c he is particularly fragile for some reason unknown to me, I lose even if the force with which I struck him would not harm the average person in any way and I had no way of knowing my strike would cause extensive harm**. Similarly, here, if the jury deems the evidence that GZ was physically inept to be credible, then the reasonableness of GZ’s actions must be judged from the perspective of a physically inept person.

**In the case that articulated this principle, Kid A inadvertently taps Kid B in the knee while they are both on swings and Kid B's knee, literally, shatters on contact.]

[I]Avoidance:[/I] Again, is there any evidence to demonstrate that once the fight began GZ had an opportunity to retreat. Has the State provided evidence to demonstrate – beyond a reasonable doubt - that GZ could have escaped the alleged assault by Martin? I see no evidence [I]precluding[/I] a conclusion that, once the fight began, GZ was unable to escape and avoid. Prior to the fight, see the evidence relating to innocence and imminence.

[I]Reasonableness:[/I] Although this is applicable to all the above elements, given the lack of anything but speculation as to how this fight began or continued, this really goes to GZ’s use of deadly force and the evidence and arguments are the same as above. Again, and I have said before - while I am not certain GZ has proved his fear was reasonable, I am certain that the State has not shown that, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was.

Go ahead saden1, show me the evidence rebutting any one of these elements beyond any reasonable doubt. I [I]guarantee[/I] you cannot do so without relying on your own speculative conclusions as to GZ’s motivations and/or state of mind or filling in a lot of blanks with assumptions as to how each acted that night.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

We ain't paying you by the word, JR....

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

lol ... if you were, it would be longer.

What can I say, it's a rough draft.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Hey Joe Im actually gonna be in around Columbia Maryland this weekend and probably will be committing some crimes. FYI. Ill PM Monday if need be

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

^^ lol

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014968]I swear, I am going to start yelling again.

"Prove [I]might[/I] have been the wrong word"? YES. IT WAS. In fact, it is a [I]blatantly[/I] wrong word. It is in every way incorrect and inapplicable in every sense to the State's case against GZ. "Show"??? Way to try and pull your sh** from the fire and still burn your hand. It's not a question of degree. Zimmerman does not need to "show" anything at this point.

BY THE STATE'S ADMISSION, self defense is at issue in this matter and the State bears the burden of persuasion to demonstrate the claim invalid. Self-defense is not an "extraordinary claim"?? What the f*** does that mean? Self-defense is a common defense in any crime alleging physical harm to another. IT IS A F***ING ELEMENT OF THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM!

[I]With nothing more from GZ[/I], and based on the indictment, the burden is entirely on the State to show - [I]BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT[/I] - that one of the five elements of self-defense is invalid. [Did you read the jury instruction saying that the burden of persuasion never switches, it is always on the State?]

But ... if you insist ... let’s look at the law and the evidence and ask “Has the State proved [I]any one[/I] of these elements to be invalid beyond a reasonable doubt?" [NOTE: If the State does do so, then, [I]and only then,[/I] would GZ need to submit rebuttal evidence to, as you say "prove reasonable doubt". Before GZ need do anything, however, the State must eliminate all reasonable doubt from one or more of the elements].

Preliminarily, the State has alleged GZ inappropriately exercised his right to self-defense and, thus, is guilty of murder2 with its incorporated charge of manslaughter. Based on the evidence presented to date, what possible reasonable doubts could exist as to GZ's use of deadly force in self-defense? First, let's take a look at the elements of self-defense. Per your article, the elements of self-defense are:

(1) [U]Innocence[/U]: You cannot initiate a physical confrontation and then claim you are acting in self-defense (unless your opponents actions allow you to “regain your innocence”).

(2) [U]Imminence[/U]: Self defense, the right to use violence is only acceptable when threatened with imminent physical harm.

(3) [U]Proportionality[/U]: In exercising your right of self-defense, you may only use force proportional to that being used against you.

(4) [U]Avoidance[/U]: Before invoking your right to self-defense, you must retreat if a safe route of retreat exists.

(5) [U]Reasonableness[/U]: Your perceptions and conduct in self-defense were those of a reasonable and prudent person under the same or similar circumstances.

So, there are the elements. Does the admitted evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) show any one of them to be conclusively – [I]i.e.[/I] beyond a reasonable doubt - invalid?

[I]Innocence:[/I] To my knowledge the only evidence that could even be interpreted as GZ initiating the physical confrontation is Jeantel’s testimony that she heard Martin say “Get off … Get off” coupled with the facts that GZ was following TM and verbally confronted TM. In contrast, the prosecutor has also introduce evidence showing that GZ has consistently indicated that Martin struck first. This is at, best, a “he said/she said” situation where two people give differing versions of how the fight was initiated [I]and[/I] both versions were introduced by the State! I think reasonable doubt abounds as to who was the individual that turned an angry verbal confrontation into a physical confrontation.

[I]Imminence: [/I] For this case, as I see it, imminence and innocence are practically one and the same. The prosecution, again, introduced evidence that Martin approached GZ, struck GZ and continued the fight unabated. The State also introduced evidence exists to demonstrate that GZ’s stated estimates of the timing is off (through comparison of the timing on his calls versus Jeantel’s). However, the fight and its lead are, for all intents and purposes, unobserved. As such, there is no evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) to conclusively show how the physical confrontation was initiated and its course through the first 30 seconds or so. Given the admitted evidence, it [I]may[/I] have happened the way the State asserts, it may have happened as described by GZ's admitted statements or it may have happend in entirely different manner. No evidence submitted, that I am aware of, absolutely precludes either the State's, GZ's or some other version of the nights events. As such, reasonable doubt abounds.

[I]Proportionality[/I]: This, of course, is the crux of the matter. Has the State shown beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ use of deadly force was not-proportional to the force being used against him. As I said in prior posts, if this was GZ’s burden to prove, my analysis would be different. However, it is not his burden. It is the State’s burden [I]to eliminate all reasonable doubts [/I]as to the reasonableness of GZ's asserted fear. From your article:



Even removing the argumentative phrases regarding "unremitting nature", "clearly no longer a threat" and "the extensiveness of", in light of the above facts --all of which have been admitted into evidence -- and any reasonable inferences drawn from them, show me evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that [I]no[/I] person in GZ’s position would be in fear for his life. Particularly in light of the additional evidence from the defense that GZ was “soft” and physically inept in a fight.

[There is fundamental legal principle called the “fragile egg defendant” – if I unjustifiable strike someone with minimal force and break his leg b/c he is particularly fragile for some reason unknown to me, I lose even if the force with which I struck him would not harm the average person in any way and I had no way of knowing my strike would cause extensive harm**. Similarly, here, if the jury deems the evidence that GZ was physically inept to be credible, then the reasonableness of GZ’s actions must be judged from the perspective of a physically inept person.

**In the case that articulated this principle, Kid A inadvertently taps Kid B in the knee while they are both on swings and Kid B's knee, literally, shatters on contact.]

[I]Avoidance:[/I] Again, is there any evidence to demonstrate that once the fight began GZ had an opportunity to retreat. Has the State provided evidence to demonstrate – beyond a reasonable doubt - that GZ could have escaped the alleged assault by Martin? I see no evidence [I]precluding[/I] a conclusion that, once the fight began, GZ was unable to escape and avoid. Prior to the fight, see the evidence relating to innocence and imminence.

[I]Reasonableness:[/I] Although this is applicable to all the above elements, given the lack of anything but speculation as to how this fight began or continued, this really goes to GZ’s use of deadly force and the evidence and arguments are the same as above. Again, and I have said before - while I am not certain GZ has proved his fear was reasonable, I am certain that the State has not shown that, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was.

Go ahead saden1, show me the evidence rebutting any one of these elements beyond any reasonable doubt. I [I]guarantee[/I] you cannot do so without relying on your own speculative conclusions as to GZ’s motivations and/or state of mind or filling in a lot of blanks with assumptions as to how each acted that night.[/quote]

Let me get this...you are saying I can follow RedskinRat into an elevator...shoot him dead after intiating an altercation then claim self-defense...and that the state has to prove that it was not self defense? And if it doesnt I get to walk?

I am calling Bullshit! Self-defense is an affirmative defense. This means the defendant's statements must be sufficient to warrant relief from the court.

[quote]An affirmative defense is a complete or partial defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal procedure that affirms the complaint or charges but raises facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, would defeat or reduce a claim even if the allegations alleged are all proven.[/quote]


Zimmerman must prove, show or whatever the **** you want to call it that he acted in self-defense.


p.s. It's not too hard to get a conviction based on circumstantial evidence and I believe there is sufficent evidence in the Zimmerman case...see:

[url=http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021192649_sheltershootingxml.html]Renton teen gets almost 70 years for fatal shooting | Local News | The Seattle Times[/url]

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1014962]Things that make you go [URL="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2359517/Documents-Little-known-Justice-Department-unit-provided-support-protest-deployment-Florida-initial-Trayvon-Martin-unrest.html#ixzz2YfEg0ph2"]"Hmmmmm"[/URL]:

[I]Documents published online Wednesday by a conservative watchdog group show that the Community Relations Service, an arm of the U.S. Justice Department, spent taxpayer dollars to help organize and implement plans for the initial string of rallies in Sanford, Florida following the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin.[/I]

[I]The protests were openly hostile to George Zimmerman, the volunteer neighborhood watch organizer who killed Martin, 17, after a struggle. Zimmerman is currently on trial in a Florida courtroom, charged with second-degree murder.[/I]

[I]Its mandate includes 'assist[ing] State and local units of government, private and public organizations, and community groups with preventing and resolving racial and ethnic tensions, incidents, and civil disorders, and in restoring racial stability and harmony.'[/I]

[I]Some of the Trayvon Martin protests, however, stoked racial animosity, with Black Panther Party members and the Rev. Al Sharpton suggesting that Zimmerman, a Latino man, was an example of white-on-black violence.[/I]

[I]'These documents detail the extraordinary intervention by the Justice Department in the pressure campaign leading to the prosecution of George Zimmerman,' said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.[/I]

[I]'My guess is that most Americans would rightly object to taxpayers paying government employees to help organize racially-charged demonstrations.'[/I]

[I]Obama: 'If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon'[/I]

[I]<vomit>[/I]
[/quote]

Does "Community Organizer" ring a bell.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Interesting evidence excluded by the Judge, the “Connor” referred to is a computer forensics guy talking about information found on TM’s phone:

[quote][b]8:43 p.m. ET:[/b] There are text messages on the phone showing Martin had been in a fight, according to Connor . He also says these texts were stored in an application that is meant to hide text messages from the main database.

[b]8:47 p.m. ET:[/b] Connor says if you want to see these hidden messages, you would have to know which application to use and put in the passcode for the application. Connor says this passcode is in addition to the code needed to open the phone itself.

[b]8:52 p.m. ET:[/b] Connor is describing how he extracts data and puts it into tables on a database.

[b]8:57 p.m. ET:[/b] A conversation between Martin and a friend is being read by Connor. Martin says he was fighting because someone snitched on him. She asks him why he's always fighting. Martin tells her he lost the first round but won the second and third rounds. She tells him several times that he needs to stop fighting.

[b]9:01 p.m. ET:[/b] Connor says there was another text conversation that details the fight and he reads it out loud. Martin says the other guy had him on the ground for the first round.

[b]9:03 p.m. ET: [/b]In a Facebook message, Connor says a relative asked Martin when he was going to teach him how to fight.[/quote]

[url=http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/07/09/george-zimmerman-trial-trayvon-martin-day-11]Judge delays ruling on animation, Martin's texts | HLNtv.com[/url]

The Judge determined that the authenticity of these statements could not be confirmed b/c there is no way to determine if TM was the one who actually sent the messages. [To pre-empt the inevitable “So what if he got into fights on occasion, it doesn’t prove he did here” assertions – the evidence is relevant and otherwise admissible for the same reasons that the prosecution introduced evidence of GZ’s MMA background.]

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=saden1;1014973]Let me get this...you are saying I can follow RedskinRat into an elevator[B]...shoot him dead after intiating an altercation then claim self-defense.[/B]..and that the state has to prove that it was not self defense? And if it doesnt I get to walk?

I am calling Bullshit! Self-defense is an affirmative defense. This means the defendant's statements must be sufficient to warrant relief from the court.




Zimmerman must prove, show or whatever the **** you want to call it that he acted in self-defense.


p.s. It's not too hard to get a conviction based on circumstantial evidence and I believe there is sufficent evidence in the Zimmerman case...see:

[URL="http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021192649_sheltershootingxml.html"]Renton teen gets almost 70 years for fatal shooting | Local News | The Seattle Times[/URL][/quote]

There is no evidence that Zimmerman started anything. Following a person is not against the law. That's the problem with their case. If there was evidence that Zim. started an altercation then he should be convicted.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[QUOTE=saden1;1014973]Let me get this...you are saying I can follow RedskinRat into an elevator...[/QUOTE]

Dude, we wouldn't even be in the same building unless I'm visiting you in jail to laugh at you.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=firstdown;1014980]There is no evidence that Zimmerman started anything. Following a person is not against the law. That's the problem with their case. If there was evidence that Zim. started an altercation then he should be convicted.[/quote]

If he can't show that he didn't start it then it's at the very least manslaughter. You can't simply claim self-defense and walk away and contrary to what JoeRedskins has to say on the matter you have to show it was in fact self-defense and poke holes in the prosecutors claims.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

You're aeguing wirh an actual practicing lawyer about how the law works.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=FRPLG;1014984]You're aeguing wirh an actual practicing lawyer about how the law works.[/quote]

Correct. I don't have to be a lawyer or stay at a Holiday Inn to comprehend the law.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=saden1;1014973]Let me get this...you are saying I can follow RedskinRat into an elevator...shoot him dead after intiating an altercation then claim self-defense...and that the state has to prove that it was not self defense? And if it doesnt I get to walk?

I am calling Bullshit! Self-defense is an affirmative defense. This means the defendant's statements must be sufficient to warrant relief from the court.

Zimmerman must prove, show or whatever the **** you want to call it that he acted in self-defense.

p.s. It's not too hard to get a conviction based on circumstantial evidence and I believe there is sufficent evidence in the Zimmerman case...see:

[url=http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021192649_sheltershootingxml.html]Renton teen gets almost 70 years for fatal shooting | Local News | The Seattle Times[/url][/quote]

You can call bullshit all you want - you would be wrong. You call bullshit on lots of things where reality conflicts with with the world according saden1. Nothing new there.

Whether admitted in the indictment, introduced by the prosecution during the trial or placed into controversy by the defendant, once raised, it is the State's burden to prove your guilt. Your analogy is miles away from GZ's claim and, in these matters, the devil is in the details. You may claim it. but without something more, (injuries, evidence of a fight, someone hearing you screaming for help), it will be pretty easy to overcome a simple "uhh, he tried to kill me - yeah, that's the ticket!" defense.

Again - here are Florida's pattern jury instructions:

[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.

[B]If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense, 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. 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. 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. The defendant is not required to present evidence or prove anything. [/quote]

Unlike your simplistic, devoid of facts example, [I]in this case,[/I] by their own admission, and as demonstrated through their own evidence, the State has placed Zimm's self-defense claim at issue and now bears the burden of proof and persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt.

So I ask you again: Through the admitted evidence, and without speculation or argumentative characterizations, demonstrate that the State has eliminated all reasonable doubt such that the claim is invalidated as to [I]any one [/I]of the five elements necesary for a valid claim of self-defense.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=saden1;1014983]If he can't show that he didn't start it then it's at the very least manslaughter. You can't simply claim self-defense and walk away and contrary to what JoeRedskins has to say on the matter you have to show it was in fact self-defense and poke holes in the prosecutors claims.[/quote]

Damn. For a smart guy, you can truly be pig-headedly dumb. Show me applicable Florida law supporting your assertion. Florida law is clearly stated in the pattern jury instructions given on this issue. At the conclusion of this case, the judge is going to tell these jurors: "If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense, 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."

To be clear, captain deflection, GZ is not simply "claim[ing] self-defense and walk[ing] away." Again (for the third time), through admissible evidence, without speculation and without argumentative characterizations, demonstrate how the State:

(1) has eliminated all reasonable doubt that GZ was "justified in using deadly force [because] he reasonably believe[d] that such force [was] 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."; and

(2) has eliminated "all reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force".

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=saden1;1014973]p.s. It's not too hard to get a conviction based on circumstantial evidence and I believe there is sufficent evidence in the Zimmerman case...see:

[url=http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021192649_sheltershootingxml.html]Renton teen gets almost 70 years for fatal shooting | Local News | The Seattle Times[/url][/quote]

This case is what we lawyers who do more than stay at a Holiday Inn call "easily distinguishable". Prosecutor's has forensic cell phone evidence placing the suspect at the scene, an admission of murder in the commission of a crime that was judged credible and his girlfriend ID'ing him from the tapes.

[quote]The case against Keodara was built primarily on the testimony of a friend who had served time with him in a juvenile facility, according to court documents.

The friend told Wenatchee police he’d gotten a frantic call from Keodara on the night of the shooting, saying he’d shot a man over a drug deal and needed to get out of town, prosecutors say.

In addition, video surveillance from a nearby gas station and drugstore show a car similar to the one described by witnesses stopping at the shelter around 2:31 a.m., prosecutors say.

Keodara’s ex-girlfriend identified him from surveillance footage, and cellphone records placed him in the area at the time of the shootings, according to Carlstrom.

But Brandes said during the trial that the two cellphones taken into evidence by police weren’t registered to Keodara and that the surveillance footage wasn’t clear enough to identify Keodara.

The gun used in the shootings was never found, and the two other Asian males who were at the scene were never identified, she said.[/quote]

Find me, in the GZ/TM evidence, a confession from GZ that he wasn't in fear of his life, survelliance video showing the fight with a witness (preferably GZ's wife for consistency with your idiotic analogy) identifying GZ as the person initiating the fight, and some independent techological forensic evidence demonstrating that, at the time he shot TM, GZ could not reasonably have been in fear for his life. Then we can talk.

Until then, stay out of Holiday Inns.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[B]When self-defense is asserted, the defendant has the burden of producing
enough evidence to establish a prima facie case demonstrating the justifiable use of
force[/B]. Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424, 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Fields v. State, 988
So. 2d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); see Murray v. State, 937 So. 2d 277, 282 (Fla.
4th DCA 2006) (holding that law does not require defendant to prove self-defense to
any standard measuring assurance of truth, exigency, near certainty, or even mere
probability; defendant’s only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could
have been reasonable). Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing of selfdefense, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant did not act in self-defense. Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188. The burden of proving
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including the burden of proving that the defendant did
not act in self-defense, never shifts from the State to the defendant. Montijo, 61 So. 3d
at 427; Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188; see Monsansky v. State, 33 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2010) (explaining that defendant has burden to present sufficient evidence that he
acted in self-defense in order to be entitled to jury instruction on issue, but presentation

^^ after 2 seconds on google i found a 2012 florida appellate opinion (appears to be unreported) ... falwell v state, 5D10-2011

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=firstdown;1014980]There is no evidence that Zimmerman started anything. Following a person is not against the law. That's the problem with their case. If there was evidence that Zim. started an altercation then he should be convicted.[/quote]

That's a lot of people's perception of the case and why they've got it wrong. Zimmerman wasn't hunting down an innocent little kid, who may or may not resembled the current President's son....

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Zimmerman will not testify. Defense has rested. Case goes to the jury Thursday.

Court denies Defense motion for acquital, Judge says "there's substantial evidence, both direct and circumstantial, that allows this case to go to the jury." [FWIW, I agree].

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014992]
1) Find me, in the GZ/TM evidence, a confession from GZ that he wasn't in fear of his life,
2)survelliance video showing the fight with a witness (preferably GZ's wife for consistency with your idiotic analogy) identifying GZ as the person initiating the fight,
3)and some independent techological forensic evidence demonstrating that, at the time he shot TM, GZ could not reasonably have been in fear for his life. Then we can talk.

Until then, stay out of Holiday Inns.[/quote]

i really think it comes down to who the jury will believe and how much weight they will give to each piece of evidence

1) not going to happen obviously. we do have evidence and testimony that martin was "creeped out"by a guy following him ..

2) compare the actual dispatch call by zimmerman vs zimmerman's reenactment. inconsistencies ...

zimmerman was told to not follow martin. what does he do? he then drives in his truck the direction martin went. when he comes to a foot path and cant follow martin anymore in his truck he gets out of his truck. zimmerman said he didnt get out of his truck to follow martin on foot but got of his truck ..... get this .... to look for a street sign bc he didnt know where he was in his own gated community ... which he apparently patrols all the time. . .

his excuse for why he wasnt following martin but had to get out of his truck is unreasonable and unbelievable to me . .

3) i dont place much weight on what the paid for defense expert said .. he is some retired paid for whore just like 99% of all defense experts. his opinions favors who pays him . . . there has been testimony from a neutral EMT (not paid by either party) that zimmerman;s injuries were consistent with 1 blow ot back of the head .. yes i know on cross the EMT said it could have been more . . also witness Good said he didnt know if punches were thrown or if any landed and that the person on bottom could have been able to punch back ...


the jury is going to decide this one. what ever they do will be the right verdict.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1014990]You can call bullshit all you want - you would be wrong. You call bullshit on lots of things where reality conflicts with with the world according saden1. Nothing new there.

Whether admitted in the indictment, introduced by the prosecution during the trial or placed into controversy by the defendant, once raised, it is the State's burden to prove your guilt. Your analogy is miles away from GZ's claim and, in these matters, the devil is in the details. You may claim it. but without something more, (injuries, evidence of a fight, someone hearing you screaming for help), it will be pretty easy to overcome a simple "uhh, he tried to kill me - yeah, that's the ticket!" defense.

Again - here are Florida's pattern jury instructions:



Unlike your simplistic, devoid of facts example, [I]in this case,[/I] by their own admission, and as demonstrated through their own evidence, the State has placed Zimm's self-defense claim at issue and no bears the burden of proof and persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt.

So I ask you again: Through the admitted evidence, and without speculation or argumentative characterizations, demonstrate that the State has eliminated all reasonable doubt such that the claim is invalidated as to [I]any one [/I]of the five elements necesary for a valid claim of self-defense.[/quote]

You're complexifying the case and completely ignoring the affirmative defense aspect of the case. WTF do you mean by speculation? Regardless of which side you approach the case from there is an element of inference involved. I mean, the entire case is built on circumstantial evidence because only two people really know what happened.

Since your are so keen on the fact of the case, here are the fact of the case:
[LIST=1][*]Zimmerman profiled Martin (has a history of doing so).[*]Zimmerman perused Martin (he didn't want him to get away with "it").[*]Zimmerman called the Police and was advised not to continue perusing Martin.[*]Zimmerman's 911 call has a 2 min gap (why?)[*]Zimmerman didn't identify himself to Martin as a Neighborhood Watchman.[*]Zimmerman got out of his car to look at street signs in a Neighborhood with 3 streets (how odd).[*]Zimmerman has MMA training ("soft" or not Martin didn't have such training).[*]Zimmerman weighs 40lb more than Martin.[*]Zimmerman has made conflicting statements about what angle Martin approached and attacked him from.[*]Zimmerman was more worried about going to work and class the next day after killing someone (that's not normal).[*]Zimmerman exaggerated his injuries.[*]Zimmerman lied that he didn't know about Stand Your Ground law on national TV.[*]Zimmerman claimed that the voice recording doesn't sound like him.[*]There is conflicting witness statements about who initiated the confrontation and who was on top (doesn't help the defense and it certainly doesn't negate the other facts the case).[*]There is conflicting witness statements who was screaming (Zimmerman himself said it doesn't sound like me only to change his tune later).[/LIST]
If I am on the jury that's enough circumstantial evidence to convict Martin of at least manslaughter because I don't believe his actions to be reasonable. You can laugh and yell all you fcking want Joe but there is enough to convict him and I certainly would find him guilty as charged. I will go back to the prosecutor's statements and I will collect on my bets...Believe that!

p.s. Can you tell us what Affirmative Defense is all about?

[YT]QJvAwt14vSM[/YT]

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;1014994]That's a lot of people's perception of the case and why they've got it wrong. Zimmerman wasn't hunting down an innocent little kid, who may or may not resembled the current President's son....[/quote]

dude, listen to the dispatch tape then watch zimmerman's reenactment. after that, tell me if you dont believe zimmerman got out of his truck to follow martin . .

i dont think his reenactment came in as evidence so the jury will not have the benefit of it but in the court of public opinion ...

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=over the mountain;1014996]i really think it comes down to who the jury will believe and how much weight they will give to each piece of evidence[/quote]

It'll come down to the concealed bigotry of the jury and the sales pitch by the attorneys.

[quote=over the mountain;1014996]1) not going to happen obviously. we do have evidence and testimony that martin was "creeped out"by a guy following him ..[/quote]

Creeped out, not scared. Remember that, it's key to why he's dead.

[quote=over the mountain;1014996]2) compare the actual dispatch call by zimmerman vs zimmerman's reenactment. inconsistencies ... [/quote]

Yes, because everyone has 100% perfect recall of stressful events. From the trial:[I] Surdyka said she heard cries for help and then multiple gunshots: "Pop, pop, pop. [B]...[/B] [/I]<Riiiiiight!>

[quote=over the mountain;1014996]zimmerman was told to not follow martin. what does he do?[/quote]

Due to the frustrations of past experience and quite lawfully, he follows Martin. It's a ****ing dispatcher, not a cop.

[quote=over the mountain;1014996]he then drives in his truck the direction martin went. when he comes to a foot path and cant follow martin anymore in his truck he gets out of his truck. zimmerman said he didnt get out of his truck to follow martin on foot but got of his truck ..... get this .... to look for a street sign bc he didnt know where he was in his own gated community ... which he apparently patrols all the time. . . [/quote]

So he shouldn't confirm where he's at? Odd attitude.

[quote=over the mountain;1014996]his excuse for why he wasnt following martin but had to get out of his truck is unreasonable and unbelievable to me . . [/quote]

Your bias showing, nothing more.

[quote=over the mountain;1014996]3) i dont place much weight on what the paid for defense expert said .. he is some retired paid for whore just like 99% of all defense experts. his opinions favors who pays him . . .[/quote]

Thankfully we were spared any biased testimony from the Prosecution. /sarc

[quote=over the mountain;1014996]there has been testimony from a neutral EMT (not paid by either party) that zimmerman;s injuries were consistent with 1 blow ot back of the head .. yes i know on cross the EMT said it could have been more . . also witness Good said he didnt know if punches were thrown or if any landed and that the person on bottom could have been able to punch back ...[/quote]

<facepalm>

[quote=over the mountain;1014996]the jury is going to decide this one. what ever they do will be the right verdict.[/quote]

How does that hold up to logic? Did you watch the OJ trial? Jurors get shit wrong all the time.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=over the mountain;1014993][B]When self-defense is asserted, the defendant has the burden of producing
enough evidence to establish a prima facie case demonstrating the justifiable use of
force[/B]. Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424, 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Fields v. State, 988
So. 2d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); see Murray v. State, 937 So. 2d 277, 282 (Fla.
4th DCA 2006) (holding that law does not require defendant to prove self-defense to
any standard measuring assurance of truth, exigency, near certainty, or even mere
probability; defendant’s only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could
have been reasonable). [B]Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing of selfdefense, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant did not act in self-defense[/B]. Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188. The burden of proving
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, [B]including the burden of proving that the defendant did
not act in self-defense,[/B] never shifts from the State to the defendant. Montijo, 61 So. 3d
at 427; Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188; see Monsansky v. State, 33 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2010) (explaining that defendant has burden to present sufficient evidence that he
acted in self-defense in order to be entitled to jury instruction on issue, but presentation

^^ after 2 seconds on google i found a 2012 florida appellate opinion (appears to be unreported) ... falwell v state, 5D10-2011[/quote]

Yes, of course, the issue must be fairly raised for the instruction to be given - that is significantly different standard, however, than anything saden1 has alluded to. It simply enough evidence to raise a factual question on the issue such that it would survive a motion to dismiss. Further, the evidence can be brought out either by the defense or through the prosecution's evidence. Bottom line, once it gets to the jury and the instruction is given, "the burden of proving that the defendant did not act in self-defense, never shifts from the State to the defendant." i.e. State must eliminate all reasonable doubt as to one or more of the five elements.

In this case, by its indictment of murder2, the prosecution has made GZ's allegedly imperfect self defense claim an element of their charge. As I have said consistently, [I]in this case[/I], it is the State's burden of proof and persuasion to disprove one of the elements of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. I will concede that this will not be true IF AND ONLY IF the Prosecution can successfully argue that the quoted instructions should not be given b/c the evidence presented did not fairly generate a [I]prima facie[/I] claim of self-defense.

Regardless of the subtleties on the issue -- Is anyone actually asserting that the evidence presented in this matter doesn't present a factual question as to whether GZ acted in self defense and that the jury instructions on self defense should not be given?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=saden1;1014997]You're complexifying the case and completely ignoring the affirmative defense aspect of the case. WTF do you mean by speculation? Regardless of which side you approach the case from there is an element of inference involved. I mean, the entire case is built on circumstantial evidence because only two people really know what happened.

Since your are so keen on the fact of the case, here are the fact of the case:
[LIST=1][*]Zimmerman profiled Martin (has a history of doing so).[*]Zimmerman perused Martin (he didn't want him to get away with "it").[*]Zimmerman called the Police and was advised not to continue perusing Martin.[*]Zimmerman's 911 call has a 2 min gap (why?)[*]Zimmerman didn't identify himself to Martin as a Neighborhood Watchman.[*]Zimmerman got out of his car to look at street signs in a Neighborhood with 3 streets (how odd).[*]Zimmerman has MMA training ("soft" or not Martin didn't have such training).[*]Zimmerman weighs 40lb more than Martin.[*]Zimmerman has made conflicting statements about what angle Martin approached and attacked him from.[*]Zimmerman was more worried about going to work and class the next day after killing someone (that's not normal).[*]Zimmerman exaggerated his injuries.[*]Zimmerman lied that he didn't know about Stand Your Ground law on national TV.[*]Zimmerman claimed that the voice recording doesn't sound like him.[*]There is conflicting witness statements about who initiated the confrontation and who was on top (doesn't help the defense and it certainly doesn't negate the other facts the case).[*]There is conflicting witness statements who was screaming (Zimmerman himself said it doesn't sound like me only to change his tune later).[/LIST]
If I am on the jury that's enough circumstantial evidence to convict Martin of at least manslaughter because I don't believe his actions to be reasonable. You can laugh and yell all you fcking want Joe but there is enough to convict him and I certainly would find him guilty as charged. I will go back to the prosecutor's statements and I will collect on my bets...Believe that!

p.s. Can you tell us what Affirmative Defense is all about?

[YT]QJvAwt14vSM[/YT][/quote]

None of what you said addresses:

(1) Is there reasonable doubt as to who initiated the physical confrontation. Hell, You even admit "There is conflicting witness statements about who initiated the confrontation and who was on top (doesn't help the defense and it certainly doesn't negate the other facts the case)." It isn't about "negating" evidence; it's about "reasonable doubt". You're entire list is devoid of any evidence circumstantial or otherwise as to who initiated the physical combat.

(2) Is there reasonable doubt that GZ in fear of his life at the time he shot TM. You at least include relevent facts (weight, MMA training). Of course you ignore Good's statements, the EMT at the scene and several other aspects.

Again, it's hard to take anything you say seriously given your initial reaction and refusal to think critically at any point since then.

Can't get the youtube at work.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1015003]None of what you said addresses:

(1) Is there reasonable doubt as to who initiated the physical confrontation. Hell, You even admit "There is conflicting witness statements about who initiated the confrontation and who was on top (doesn't help the defense and it certainly doesn't negate the other facts the case)." It isn't about "negating" evidence; it's about "reasonable doubt". You're entire list is devoid of any evidence circumstantial or otherwise as to who initiated the physical combat.

(2) Is there reasonable doubt that GZ in fear of his life at the time he shot TM. You at least include relevent facts (weight, MMA training). Of course you ignore Good's statements, the EMT at the scene and several other aspects.

Again, it's hard to take anything you say seriously given your initial reaction and refusal to think critically at any point since then.

Can't get the youtube at work.[/quote]

1. Again, I am saying that if the defendant is claiming self-defense then burden is on him to create doubt by providing evidence to the contrary. Nothing Zimmerman's defense team has shown places doubt as two who initiated the attack only that Zimmerman sustained non-threatening injuries while Martin sustained a gun shot to the heart. You seem to think this is a win for the defense and I do not. All he has to show is a few buries and conflicting witness statement neither of which necessary refuted a larger body of circumstantial evidence.

2. All Zimmerman so far is say "i have scars on my head" and I don't believe that to be sufficient to create doubt. Even if the scars life threatening there isn't sufficient evidence who attacked who first. As for Goods, [URL="http://www.ibtimes.com/george-zimmerman-trial-jonathan-good-testifies-trayvon-martin-was-top-zimmerman-during-fight-1327855#"]he isn't credible and I wouldn't place much value in his testimony[/URL]:

[quote]Jonathan Good, the witness, testified in a Florida courtroom Friday that he could not see whether Trayvon was punching Zimmerman during the fight, contradicting earlier police statements he made.[/quote]


I will ask you again, what is Affirmative Defense?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=over the mountain;1014996]i really think it comes down to who the jury will believe and how much weight they will give to each piece of evidence

1) not going to happen obviously. we do have evidence and testimony that martin was "creeped out"by a guy following him ..

2) compare the actual dispatch call by zimmerman vs zimmerman's reenactment. inconsistencies ...

zimmerman was told to not follow martin. what does he do? he then drives in his truck the direction martin went. when he comes to a foot path and cant follow martin anymore in his truck he gets out of his truck. zimmerman said he didnt get out of his truck to follow martin on foot but got of his truck ..... get this .... to look for a street sign bc he didnt know where he was in his own gated community ... which he apparently patrols all the time. . .

his excuse for why he wasnt following martin but had to get out of his truck is unreasonable and unbelievable to me . .

3) i dont place much weight on what the paid for defense expert said .. he is some retired paid for whore just like 99% of all defense experts. his opinions favors who pays him . . . there has been testimony from a neutral EMT (not paid by either party) that zimmerman;s injuries were consistent with 1 blow ot back of the head .. yes i know on cross the EMT said it could have been more . . also witness Good said he didnt know if punches were thrown or if any landed and that the person on bottom could have been able to punch back ...

the jury is going to decide this one. what ever they do will be the right verdict.[/quote]

Reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt.

(1) To me, without something, circumstantial or otherwise, that GZ started the fight, I don't see how anyone can say there is no reasonable doubt on this issue.

(2) Okay, he got out of his truck and followed TM when he shouldn't have then .... what? TM pops him first? He pops TM first? WTF happened??

(3) You're quoting prosecutor's medical expert who never examined GZ but just photos after the fact - not the EMT - on the striking concrete issue. The neutral on site EMT said very, very clearly that someone exibiting Martin's injuries would "probably" be concerned for their medical well being and could very reasonably be concerned with suffering brain or concussive injuries if they were on their back. Does the fact that you were relying on the prosecution's "whore" and not the neutral EMT affect you're conclusion?

So you completely dismiss Good's testimony as creating any reasonable doubt on the issue fo GZ's state of mind? What about the fact he heard him screaming for help? No doubt created by that?


On the jury issue, I agree. Despite my firm belief that the State has failed miserably in meetings its legal burden, I will accept what the jury decides and have no doubt enough was presented to have six people find a manslaughter charge on this issue.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

If you're 'soft' and take a pop to the head who's to say that you don't immediately fear for your life?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=saden1;1015004]1. Again, I am saying that if the defendant is claiming self-defense then burden is on him to create doubt by providing evidence to the contrary. Nothing Zimmerman's defense team has shown places doubt as two who initiated the attack only that Zimmerman sustained non-threatening injuries while Martin sustained a gun shot to the heart. You seem to think this is a win for the defense and I do not. All he has to show is a few buries and conflicting witness statement neither of which necessary refuted a larger body of circumstantial evidence.

2. All Zimmerman so far is say "i have scars on my head" and I don't believe that to be sufficient to create doubt. Even if the scars life threatening there isn't sufficient evidence that who attacked who. As for Goods, [URL="http://www.ibtimes.com/george-zimmerman-trial-jonathan-good-testifies-trayvon-martin-was-top-zimmerman-during-fight-1327855#"]he isn't credible and I wouldn't place much value in his testimony[/URL]

I will ask you again, what is Affirmative Defense?[/quote]


(1) Your just f'ing wrong on how you are applying the law. It is not his "burden to create doubt". Read the F'ing case law OMT googled and the jury instructions and tell me how your assertion is consistent with them.

(2) So you entireely discount the EMT's assertion that a person exhibiting GZ's injuries would probably be in fear for their medical safety and concerned about concussive or brain injuries. Doesn't cause you the tiniest bit of doubt. Good isn't credible?? The one guy who had a close up view of the altercation as it was occuring? And his testimony that GZ was screaming for help is just flluff?

Affirmative defense is a defense raised by the defending party.

In a civil matter, to gain the benefit of the affirmative defense, the defendant raising it must prove all its elements by a preponderance of the evidence. If he does so, plaintiff must then rebut the defense by disproving one or more elements by a preponderance of the evidence or his claim will fail.

In a criminal matter, whether raised by the defendant or fairly generated by the State's evidence, once a prima facie case has been made (i.e. viewing the facts in evidence, and [I]any reasonable inferences drawn from them[/I], in a light most favorable to the defendant, they create the [I]possibilty[/I] of a jury question), the burden is then upon the state to eliminate all reasonable doubt as to one or more of the elements of the affirmative defense. If they fail to do so, a verdict of not guilty is required.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=over the mountain;1014993][B]When self-defense is asserted, the defendant has the burden of producing
enough evidence to establish a prima facie case demonstrating the justifiable use of
force[/B]. Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424, 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Fields v. State, 988
So. 2d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); see Murray v. State, 937 So. 2d 277, 282 (Fla.
4th DCA 2006) (holding that law does not require defendant to prove self-defense to
any standard measuring assurance of truth, exigency, near certainty, or even mere
probability; defendant’s only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could
have been reasonable). Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing of selfdefense, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant did not act in self-defense. Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188. The burden of proving
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including the burden of proving that the defendant did
not act in self-defense, never shifts from the State to the defendant. Montijo, 61 So. 3d
at 427; Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188; see Monsansky v. State, 33 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2010) (explaining that defendant has burden to present sufficient evidence that he
acted in self-defense in order to be entitled to jury instruction on issue, but presentation

^^ after 2 seconds on google i found a 2012 florida appellate opinion (appears to be unreported) ... falwell v state, 5D10-2011[/quote]Hey, OTM. Enjoyed reading your posts, as well as JoeR and RR's in this thread, even though you and I apparently disagree.

One thing surprised me about your posts was how you seem to take the above statement. That self defense must be supported by reasonable evidence by the defense (prima facie - at first glance, plausible, reasonable on the face of it), and that it's then the prosecution's burden to disprove it.

Reading your posts, I thought initially that you were agreeing with RR about Zimmerman's defense have established prima facie self defense, that it was now up to the prosecution to provide a case more than a reasonable doubt. But I get the impression that you don't think Z's defense has met that burden.

Why isn't Martin being on top of Zimmerman pummeling him, with Zimmerman sustaining the only injuries in the fisticuff part of the fight (broken nose, black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury) enough to establish "prima facie" self defense?

I mean, it's important in this trial to try figuring out the details, like who started the fight, was it reasonable for Zimmerman to fear for his life, etc. But just to establish a reasonable first glance self defense... Geez does someone have to have their skull already split open before they can make a possible claim of self defense, in your opinion?

While I don't know how the known details should be weighed, I hope the jury is taught how to in this case, in the final verdict. (I personally think so far the murder count is a joke, manslaughter in this or a civil trial might be right though I doubt it, and the burden of proof is very much on the prosecution in this case.)

Maybe some people are confusing ordinary self-defense claims with stand-your-ground. Stand-your-ground appears to me, to offer protection to people AFTER it's proven they were justified in using lethal force, to prevent revenge minded people from suing the person into bankruptcy after they were found innocent by self defense. That's why SYG is an affirmative defense, the defendant has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt self defense was justified, to get the protection against lawsuits SYG offers.

The traditional "self defense" claim is not the same as SYG. As long as it's plausible the defendant could have used self-defense, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution. Like practically ALL crimes, the defendant is presumed innocent until guilty, as they should be. (At least one exception, if the IRS comes after you) Zimmerman isn't claiming SYG, he's claiming traditional self defense.

So, OTM, I really don't understand why you quote the standards for self defense, and then appear to think that the burden of proof rests with the defense in this case.