Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1015007](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.[/quote]

[quote]It is not his "burden to create doubt".[/quote]

So basically the state can present evidence and all Zimmerman has to do is show up to court? He is not obligated to take an active role in demonstrating why the state's claims should be doubted?

If you're going to claim self-defense you must show it was self-defense. If you're going to claim insanity you must show you are insane. All you're doing is circling the wagon and avoiding the heart of the matter. Has the state demonstrated enough evidence to convict? I believe it has. Has Zimmerman provided enough evidence to create reasonable doubt? You seem to think so without actually saying "there is a level of burden on the defense in a self-defense case to refuted the evidence presented by the prosecution and create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors."

As for Good, any witness that changes their story is suspect. Which version of his story should we believe? Or should we just dismiss his testimony outright? If I am a juror, I dismiss his testimony as not credible. As for the EMT, his testimony adds little value except to say he was injured. I don't who initiated the altercation but I do know who was stalking who, and who violated reasonableness therefore I will dismiss his testimony as peripheral.

You can attack me all you want and make snide comments but I tell you what, I've put my money where my mouth is and I stand by everything I have said in this thread. We'll know who was right and was wrong wrong wrong soon enough.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=saden1;1015010]So basically the state can present evidence and all Zimmerman has to do is show up to court? [B]He is not obligated to take an active role in demonstrating why the state's claims should be doubted?
[/B]
If you're going to claim self-defense you must show it was self-defense. If you're going to claim insanity you must show you are insane. All you're doing is circling the wagon and avoiding the heart of the matter. Has the state demonstrated enough evidence to convict? I believe it has. Has Zimmerman provided enough evidence to create reasonable doubt? You seem to think so without actually saying "there is a level of burden on the defense in a self-defense case to refuted the evidence presented by the prosecution and create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors."

As for Good, any witness that changes their story is suspect. Which version of his story should we believe? Or should we just dismiss his testimony outright? If I am a juror, I dismiss his testimony as not credible. As for the EMT, his testimony adds little value except to say he was injured. I don't who initiated the altercation but I do know who was stalking who, and who violated reasonableness therefore I will dismiss his testimony as peripheral.

You can attack me all you want and make snide comments but I tell you what, I've put my money where my mouth is and I stand by everything I have said in this thread. We'll know who was right and was wrong wrong wrong soon enough.[/quote]
He is obligated (from the way I understand it) to show a basic initial face value claim. After that yes, he does sit back and the State has to show beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't seem as complicated as you may be making it.

So, in this case, if you take every good fact for GZ made and every favorable inference reasonably flowing from them and accept them as 100% correct, would the legal requirements ( the five elements) of GZ's self defense claim be met? If so, a prima facia case is made, the defense is properly raised, the above instructions are given and the State's duty to rebut one or more of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt is invoked.

It is essentially saying "If we believe EVERYTHING favorable fact and inference as the god's honest truth, could a jury legally find you innocent?"

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1015013][B]He is obligated (from the way I understand it) to show a basic initial face value claim. [/B] After that yes, he does sit back and the State has to show beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't seem as complicated as you may be making it.[/quote]

That's exactly what I am saying. It's Joe that making this more complicated than it is. All I have said all along is that self-defense places a burden on the defense, much more so than in non-affirmative defense.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1015015]So, in this case, if you take every good fact for GZ made and every favorable inference reasonably flowing from them and accept them as 100% correct, would the legal requirements ( the five elements) of GZ's self defense claim be met? If so, a prima facia case is made, the defense is properly raised, the above instructions are given and the State's duty to rebut one or more of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt is invoked.

It is essentially saying "If we believe EVERYTHING favorable fact and inference as the god's honest truth, could a jury legally find you innocent?"[/quote]

I get all of that, what I don't get is why you seem to think there is no obligation on the part of the defense to present these facts. If the presentation of these facts by the defense is not optional then there exists a burden on the defense!

Because the prosecution has submitted all the necessary facts to establish the defense during their case in chief. -- They didn't have to put GZ' s statements to the cops in, the didn't have to play the Hannity interview, they didn't have to play the reenactment, they didn't have to put Zimm's author friend on the stand. They didn't have to call Good or the EMT to testify.

But they did.

In light of all that evidence, GZ has no legal obligation to present anything more.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1015020]Because the prosecution has submitted all the necessary facts to establish the defense during their case in chief. -- They didn't have to put GZ' s statements to the cops in, the didn't have to play the Hannity interview, they didn't have to play the reenactment, they didn't have to put Zimm's author friend on the stand. They didn't have to call Good or the EMT to testify.

But they did.

In light of all that evidence, GZ has no legal obligation to present anything more.[/quote]

What you describe is a defense tactic in which it piggy-backs on the prosecution. That isn't to say though that they are not legally obligated to present evidence to support his self-defense.

You want GZ on the stand testifying and he simply has no legal burden to do so.

Even if the prosecution DIDN'T put the evidence listed on, GZ could and leave it at that. In light of the evidence presented by the prosecution, what need be shown to establish a prima facia case?? Short of taking the stand himself what could he possibly present that has not been brought out by the prosecution??

It's always the defendant's option/risk of resting your case without testifying. Even when you are arguing an affirmative defense is applicable. This is true in any case. Civil or criminal (although in a civil trial you can be subpoenaed by the other side).

[QUOTE=saden1;1015021]What you describe is a defense tactic in which it piggy-backs on the prosecution. That isn't to say though that they are not legally obligated to present evidence to support his self-defense.[/QUOTE]

Taking the points JR summarized and putting them up as the defense closing statement using facts already in evidence would seem to satisfy what you are saying the defense needs to do. Not quite sure what else you are saying they would need to do.

He is absolutely allowed to "piggy back" the prosecution case. The evidence is the evidence. It doesn't "belong" to anyone.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Of course Zim's not gonna take the stand and give the world his side of the story, because thats what a man does and he's a straight up bitch. its his mo at this point

If he's gets off, Id like to go ahead and go old skool and exile him.

[QUOTE=Chico23231;1015026]Of course Zim's not gonna take the stand and give the world his side of the story, because thats what a man does and he's a straight up bitch. its his mo at this point

If he's gets off, Id like to go ahead and go old skool and exile him.[/QUOTE]
I would hesitate to say for certain, but I would be shocked if more than a small percentage of defendants took the stand. One wrong word or wrong appearance might just be enough to sway a juror or jury against you. You pay a lawyer to present your case and the smartest defendants shut the hell up and don't say anything unless their lawyer tells them to.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Chico23231;1015026]Of course Zim's not gonna take the stand and give the world his side of the story, because thats what a man does and he's a straight up bitch. its his mo at this point

If he's gets off, Id like to go ahead and go old skool and exile him.[/quote]Serious question: Why do you think we have the 5th amendment?

So, instead of "lawyering up", GZ meets and cooperates with police when he was under no legal compulsion to do so (at any point, all he has to say is, "I refuse to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me" ), giving multiple statements - including a videotaped moment by moment description - all of which he likely knew could be (and ultimately were) used against him. That counts for nothing.

Exercising your 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination at trial? What a wuss.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

oh no I agree, lying to cover his ass has worked just fine to this point. "We just gotta make it look like your life was in danger" that's the out in this case. brilliant stuff

Lets give him a gun and send'm back into the neighborhood to get his job as neighbor patrol officer career going again. outstanding country. Anybody let'm patrol their street first? Lets give'm a cape too, he's a super hero by all accounts

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1015005]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.[/quote]


That's where reasonable doubt has a limit. Zimmerman pulled the trigger. The burden is on him to prove his life was in danger. We know he killed
Trayvon, therefore it is up to him to prove he was justified beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution is not trying to prove Zimmerman killed Trayvon. In that case they would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt he killed Trayvon. Burden of proof is on Zimmerman. George has blood on his hands.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Gary84Clark;1015031]That's where reasonable doubt has a limit. Zimmerman pulled the trigger. [B]The burden is on him to prove his life was in danger.[/B] We know he killed Trayvon, therefore it is up to him to prove he was justified beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution is not trying to prove Zimmerman killed Trayvon. In that case they would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt he killed Trayvon. [B]Burden of proof is on Zimmerman[/B]. George has blood on his hands.[/quote]

No. You're wrong and you're being intentionally ignorant. Read what the Florida caselaw says.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Also, saden1 ...

The youtube clip is simply the prosecutor's response to GZ's motion for acquittal. In that instance, the standard of review by the judge is just the opposite of that needed for a jury instruction on self defense. In opposing a motion for acquittal the prosecution is the one entitled to having the facts viewed in a light most favorable to them. It's all about generating a question of fact and only tangentially related to the closing. Hell, he argues that in front of the jury, it's a concession speech - Just one example, the prosecutor says forensics concerning the bullet wound "is, at least, as consistent with [the State's] version of the events as it is with the Defendant's". Equally consistent versions comporting with provable forensic evidence? How can that not be reasonable doubt? I am just not getting it.

If there were two plausible stories with TM as the survivor - would you convict him?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Joe, please come to your senses. You are making a mockery of our legal system.

[url=http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-8976]Smith, et al., v. United States | LII / Legal Information Institute[/url]

[url=http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2012/2012_11_8976]Smith v. United States | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law[/url]

Game...set...match!

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Let's just convict on reasonable assumption, not acquit through reasonable doubt. Problem solved.

So those saying manslaughter, you have no doubts whatsoever that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation and wasn't in fear for his life.

Not asking if that's what you think is true. I am simply asking if you believe it absolutely could not have happened any differently.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=saden1;1015034]Joe, please come to your senses. You are making a mockery of our legal system.

[url=http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-8976]Smith, et al., v. United States | LII / Legal Information Institute[/url]

[url=http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2012/2012_11_8976]Smith v. United States | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law[/url]

Game...set...match![/quote]

Go back to your holiday Inn. Take a few courses. Talk to me when you have a clue and aren't talking out your ass about shit of which you clearly are ignorant.

The [I]Smith[/I] case relates only to Federal law and, within that body of law, only tothe RICO Act. In [I]Smith[/I], the Court found that, while Congress could have assigned the burden to disprove specific affirmative defenses to the prosecution, it did not do so for the RICO Act and, more specifically, was under no obligation to do so for the specific affirmative defense alleged. At the same time, the SC made clear that Congress was certainly within its authority to do so.

[quote][B]Of course, Congress may choose to assign the Government the burden of proving the nonexistence of withdrawal, even if that is not constitutionally required. It did not do so here.[/B] “[T]he common-law rule was that affirmative defenses . . . were matters for the defendant to prove.” Martin, supra, at 235; see 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 201 (1769). Because Congress did not address in 21 U. S. C. §846 or 18 U. S. C. §1962(d) the burden of proof for withdrawal, we presume that Congress intended to preserve the common-law rule. Dixon, 548 U. S., at 13–14. [/quote]

In Florida, for Florida State crimes, guess what law applies --- HINT: It's Florida's. Guess who interprets Florida law? Hint: Their courts and they are located in Florida. Apparently, Florida has modified the common law rule referenced by the Supreme Court:

[I]Sipple v. State[/I], 972 So. 2d 912, 916 (2007)
[quote] In order to establish a [I]prima facie [/I]case of self-defense, the defendant does not have to testify at trial; his or her statement to the police admitted into evidence may be sufficient. [I]See [/I][I]Peterka v. State[/I], 890 So. 2d 219, 229 (Fla. 2004) ("We conclude that in light of Peterka's statement to police, trial counsel presented a viable, coherent defense strategy of either self-defense or unintentional killing."), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1118, 125 S. Ct. 2911, 162 L. Ed. 2d 301 (2005); [I]Henry v. State[/I], 862 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2003); [I]Wright[/I]. Based on Sipple's statement to the police, which was admitted into evidence, we conclude that Sipple met his burden of presenting a prima facie case of self-defense, which required the trial judge to properly instruct the jury as to that defense.[/quote]

Show me were [I]Sipple[/I] has been overturned.

You want to quote cases at me, you better start bringing the A game and not some dumbass google search. Why don't you go google "heart surgery" and volunteer at Johns Hopkins tomorrow.

You are approaching G84C levels of ignorance.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

LOL...I may have to file a formal complain against you with the ABA. You certainly dont seem to know the law.

Here is something I googled and found posted on a Florida law firm's website that should eat away at your credibility.

[url=http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-criminal-law-defenses.html]Florida Criminal Law Defenses | Criminal Affirmative Defenses[/url]

[QUOTE]Florida Affirmative Defenses - Justification and Excuse
*
Under Florida law, an Affirmative Defense is a defense that operates to avoid (or cancel) the legal effect of a criminal act, which would ordinarily subject the accused to criminal liability. In an affirmative defense, the defendant admits the truth of the essential act (the act forming the basis of the prosecutor’s allegations), but justifies or excuses the act so as to avoid being subjected to criminal punishment. *In effect, the defendant says: “Yes, I committed the act. However, I am not subject to criminal liability because, under the facts and circumstances of my case, the act was justifiable or excusable.”
*
For affirmative defenses raised in the course of a Florida jury trial, the defendant must present some evidence supporting an affirmative defense before the Court will grant a jury instruction on that defense. If the defendant presents evidence to support the instruction, then the jury will be instructed on the law as to that defense and will consider the defense during their deliberations. **[/QUOTE]

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

One, you're quoting from an attorney website not the Court itself. The website cites no cases and is saying exactly what I have said.

Your Florida lawyer's website:
[quote]The defendant must present some evidence supporting an affirmative defense before the Court will grant a jury instruction on that defense. If the defendant presents evidence to support the instruction, then the jury will be instructed on the law as to that defense and will consider the defense during their deliberations.[/quote]

The Florida Court:
[quote]In order to establish a prima facie case of self-defense, the defendant does not have to testify at trial; his or her statement to the police admitted into evidence may be sufficient.[/quote]

If there is any conflict, guess which wins. Here, GZ's statement to the police is in evidence and it clearly establishes [I]prima facia[/I] claim of self-defense such that the jury will be instructed as previously stated.

Admit it, you're just being intentionally obtuse at this point.

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;1015039]...... The website sites no cases<SNIP> [/QUOTE]

'Cites'

The only fault I can find. So far ahead on points you're a lap in front.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=724Skinsfan;1015035]Let's just convict on reasonable assumption, not acquit through reasonable doubt. Problem solved.[/quote]

That certainly is saden1's approach.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

You should stop and walk away with semblance of dignity. You know damn well or at least should know the defendants statements are insufficient evidence in an affirmative defense claim. On top of that you didnt seem to think earlier there is a burden on the defense and now you're claiming to have said there is all along?

I am not a lawyer but I do possess the ability to think critically and unlike RedskinRat I dont swallow.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

This really isn't hard to understand. Knowing full well the JR has repeatedly explained this I hesitate to even take a shot at it but here goes.

1. GZ must assert self-defense. ~ he has (police statements)
2. GZ must present evidence (testimony, circumstantial, etc..) to formulate a reasonable self-defense claim ~ he has (police statements plus a boat load of evidence has been presented)....here is where the wheels seem to be falling off for a few. This doesn't mean that ALL the evidence presented (weighed for believability and relevance) must add up to self-defense. It simply means the evidence presented, seen only favorably for GZ, must add up to self-defense. It doesn't matter whether you or anyone believes Good or finds the restimony of the EMT relevant, what matters is that what they say (and other evidence) presents a reasonable scenario of self-defense. Bam...face-value case made. It can't be argued. There has been evidence, that when seen only favorably for GZ, obviously adds up to self-defense. Someone explain how it doesn't.
3. Jury instruction WILL be made to adjudicate the merits of the self-defense claim.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=saden1;1015042]You should stop and walk away with semblance of dignity. You know damn well or at least should know the defendants statements are insufficient evidence in an affirmative defense claim. On top of that you didnt seem to think earlier there is a burden on the defense and now you're claiming to have said there is all along?

I am not a lawyer but I do possess the ability to think critically and unlike RedskinRat I dont swallow.[/quote]

Apparently, however, you do not possess the ability to read. [I]Sipple v. State[/I], 972 So. 2d 912, 916 (2007):
[quote]In order to establish a prima facie case of self-defense, the defendant does not have to testify at trial; his or her statement to the police admitted into evidence may be sufficient. [I]See Peterka v. State[/I], 890 So. 2d 219, 229 (Fla. 2004) ("We conclude that in light of Peterka's statement to police, trial counsel presented a viable, coherent defense strategy of either self-defense or unintentional killing."), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1118, 125 S. Ct. 2911, 162 L. Ed. 2d 301 (2005); [I]Henry v. State[/I], 862 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2003); Wright. [b]Based on Sipple's statement to the police, which was admitted into evidence, we conclude that Sipple met his burden of presenting a prima facie case of self-defense, which required the trial judge to properly instruct the jury as to that defense.[/B][/quote]

Where oh where is there one single, on-point Florida case that says "the defendant's statements are insufficient evidence in an affirmative defense claim."? Because the [I]Sipple[/I] case says exactly the opposite [BTW - see the "cert denied" descriptive in the [I]Peterka[/I] cite means the Supremes had a chance to reverse but didn't, just an FYI for you next Holiday Inn stay]. Bring the law b/c so far all you've brought is bullshit.

As to your claim "you didn't seem to think earlier there is a burden on the defense and now you're claiming to have said there is all along". There isn't a "burden" as you seem to be defining it. Rather, what I have consistently said was that, [I]in this case[/I], GZ doesn't have to prove anything b/c a [I]prima facia[/I] showing of the self-defense claim has been made by the prosecution. That is an absolutely correct statement of the law and you have yet to cite one relevant case or statute to dispute it. I have conceded that, [I]if[/I] the prosecution's case [I]had not[/I] provided the [I]prima facia [/I]evidence for such his claim, GZ would have the "burden" of the making a minimal showing. Even then, and contrary to your continuous assertions, however, it is not his burden to prove a reasonable doubt but, rather, simply to create a question of fact as to the existence of reasonable doubt. That's the f'ing law and nothing - NOTHING - you have brought to the table contradicts that except your whiny cries of "nuh -uhhh".

I do this for a living and will beat on you all day just b/c it's fun to show your bias and intentional ignorance. Quote an on point Florida case, statute or regulation that supports you assertion and overturns [I]Sipple[/I], [I]Jenkins[/I] and a host of other Florida case law. You can't. You got nothing but ignorance, bias and petulance left.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=FRPLG;1015044]This really isn't hard to understand. Knowing full well the JR has repeatedly explained this I hesitate to even take a shot at it but here goes.

1. GZ must assert self-defense. ~ he has (police statements)
2. GZ must present evidence (testimony, circumstantial, etc..) to formulate a reasonable self-defense claim ~ he has (police statements plus a boat load of evidence has been presented)....here is where the wheels seem to be falling off for a few. This doesn't mean that ALL the evidence presented (weighed for believability and relevance) must add up to self-defense. It simply means the evidence presented, seen only favorably for GZ, must add up to self-defense. It doesn't matter whether you or anyone believes Good or finds the restimony of the EMT relevant, what matters is that what they say (and other evidence) presents a reasonable scenario of self-defense. Bam...face-value case made. It can't be argued. There has been evidence, that when seen only favorably for GZ, obviously adds up to self-defense. Someone explain how it doesn't.
3. Jury instruction WILL be made to adjudicate the merits of the self-defense claim.[/quote]

Close, but, in light of [I]Sipple[/I], I don't think your step 2 is necessary - GZ's statement to the police is all that's needed. Bottom line, a "[I]prima facia[/I]" showing requires only a very, very minimal production - for all practical purposes, it's the lowest standard of evidence out there.

Also, it's not that [I]GZ[/I] has to present certain evidence, it's that the evidence actually submitted - regardless of its origin, "when seen only favorably for GZ ... adds up to self-defense". The "regardless of origin" is apparently a huge stumbling block for saden1.

Finally, under [I]Sipple[/I], the cases cited therein and subsequent case law citing [I]Sipple[/I], the instruction to the jury requires them "to adjudicate the merits of the self-defense claim" such that they must find that the prosecution has eliminated all reasonable doubt on one or more of the requisite elements of self-defense. If they do not believe the State has done so, they must acquit.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1015036]So those saying manslaughter, you have no doubts whatsoever that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation and wasn't in fear for his life.

Not asking if that's what you think is true. I am simply asking if you believe it absolutely could not have happened any differently.[/quote]

There is no doubt in my mind its manslaugher. Negligent killing. I also believe in Zim's mind stand your ground qualified his actions. Not being talked enough in the case, but that was Zim's justification. Zim thought he had the right to even use force to protect his neighborhood. People need to understand, he's not a normal, reasonable person. After he actually killed Trayvon, only then did he think, oh no I shouldnt have done this; up until that point he thought he had every right to do what he did. The law has to be the line in the sand, his negligence and direct actions lead to the death of a completely innocent kid. Remember Trayvon did nothing...this wasnt a case of a kid breaking in cars or houses or dealing drugs etc.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=saden1;1015034]Joe, please come to your senses. You are making a mockery of our legal system.

[url=http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-8976]Smith, et al., v. United States | LII / Legal Information Institute[/url]

[url=http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2012/2012_11_8976]Smith v. United States | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law[/url]

Game...set...match![/quote]LMAO. These two posts are too good not to respond to. For the post above, I was going to respond with, "Do you understand in what way 5th amendment rights apply in this case, saden?" But why try to provide some reasoning to your thinking myself? Saden, how does this case you cite applies to the Zimmerman case?

[quote=saden1;1015038]LOL...I may have to file a formal complain against you with the ABA. You certainly dont seem to know the law.

Here is something I googled and found posted on a Florida law firm's website that should eat away at your credibility.

[url=http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-criminal-law-defenses.html]Florida Criminal Law Defenses | Criminal Affirmative Defenses[/url][/quote]OMG. I saw this website earlier and figured it was so in favor of Zimmerman it would be dismissed as too biased. Saden, like the prosecution in this case, you keep giving victory to your opponent. In this example, you don't understand that not all affirmative defenses are alike.

From the website you brought up yourself:

[url=http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-law-self-defense-use-of-force.html]Florida Law on Self-Defense : Use of Deadly and Non Deadly Force[/url]

[URL="http://www.husseinandwebber.com/florida-law-self-defense-use-of-force.html"]What Evidence is Required to Raise a Self-Defense Claim in Florida?

The defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense in Florida when there is any evidence to support the claim. This is a low standard and even a “scintilla” of evidence will be sufficient, even if the self-defense theory is extremely weak or improbable. Self-defense may even be inferred from the State’s evidence without the Defendant or a defense witness ever taking the stand.
[/URL]

Read further, I think the website you brought up pretty much addresses and then invalidates every argument you've made in this thread, saden. :)

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Chico23231;1015047]There is no doubt in my mind its manslaugher. Negligent killing. I also believe in Zim's mind stand your ground qualified his actions. Not being talked enough in the case, but that was Zim's justification. Zim thought he had the right to even use force to protect his neighborhood. People need to understand, he's not a normal, reasonable person. After he actually killed Trayvon, only then did he think, oh no I shouldnt have done this; up until that point he thought he had every right to do what he did. The law has to be the line in the sand, his negligence and direct actions lead to the death of a completely innocent kid. Remember Trayvon did nothing...this wasnt a case of a kid breaking in cars or houses or dealing drugs etc.[/quote]You have beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman actually provoked violence against himself? If that's your opinion, it is what it is, but why are you so sure of that? SMH at the idea 84clark has expressed that getting out of your car and following someone is legally reason enough to be attacked.

The rest, good lord, where do you get the idea that what you said above is how Zimmerman justified shooting Martin? And what Zimmerman actually thought afterwards?

Zimmerman claimed his self-justification was that he called for help and nobody came, and that Martin had reached for Zimmerman's gun (not grabbed it, reached for it). This might or might not be true, but how did you come to be so sure otherwise?

You seem to ascribe all kind of bad thoughts to Zimmerman with little evidence, while saying you're positive the guy talking about "the creepy ass cracker" did nothing.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=HailGreen28;1015049]You have beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman actually provoked violence against himself? If that's your opinion, it is what it is, but why are you so sure of that? SMH at the idea 84clark has expressed that getting out of your car and following someone is legally reason enough to be attacked.

The rest, good lord, where do you get the idea that what you said above is how Zimmerman justified shooting Martin? And what Zimmerman actually thought afterwards?

Zimmerman claimed his self-justification was that he called for help and nobody came, and that Martin had reached for Zimmerman's gun (not grabbed it, reached for it). This might or might not be true, but how did you come to be so sure otherwise?[/quote]

The most important piece of evidence is the call. Alot people giving Zim too much credit. Yes from what I see and hear from Zim, Im sure of that.

So as long as I yell help, I can shoot someone? Thats justification? Ill remember that.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1015046](snip).[/quote]JoeR, could the prosecution's plan all along have been to overcharge, get a jury that might be predisposed to look for a compromise ("to make everybody happy"), to get a manslaughter charge?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Chico23231;1015047]There is no doubt in my mind its manslaugher. Negligent killing. I also believe in Zim's mind stand your ground qualified his actions. Not being talked enough in the case, but that was Zim's justification. Zim thought he had the right to even use force to protect his neighborhood. People need to understand, he's not a normal, reasonable person. After he actually killed Trayvon, only then did he think, oh no I shouldnt have done this; up until that point he thought he had every right to do what he did. The law has to be the line in the sand, his negligence and direct actions lead to the death of a completely innocent kid. Remember Trayvon did nothing...this wasnt a case of a kid breaking in cars or houses or dealing drugs etc.[/quote]

To be clear, I understand that is what you think happened and why. I also agree that it is a reasonable explanation of what happened that night.

My question to you is - Is it [I]the only [/I]reasonable explanation of what happened that night? For me, I just don't know with any degree of certainty who started the fight and I believe that, at the moment he fired the gun, Zimmerman really was reasonably in fear of his life. Are you saying that my belief is completely irrational and has no support from the evidence submitted?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Chico23231;1015050]The most important piece of evidence is the call. Alot people giving Zim too much credit. Yes from what I see and hear from Zim, Im sure of that.

So as long as I yell help, I can shoot someone? Thats justification? Ill remember that.[/quote]Well, do you think Zimmerman would have still shot Martin if someone had come to help? That's one risk Zimmerman was taking in calling for help if he wanted to shoot Martin, right?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=HailGreen28;1015051]JoeR, could the prosecution's plan all along have been to overcharge, get a jury that might be predisposed to look for a compromise ("to make everybody happy"), to get a manslaughter charge?[/quote]

Yes. They would not be the first and they won't be the last to do so. Of course, in doing so, they run the risk of promising more than they can prove and creating an expectation from the jury that they cannot match.

I did not watch the openings. The best indication that this is what they did would be how they approached the issue there. If they did a "soft sell" of the murder 2 "reckless acts" facts at that point while emphasizing the manslaughter "negligent act" facts, then that was likely the plan all along.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=HailGreen28;1015048]... Read further, I think the website you brought up pretty much addresses and then invalidates every argument you're made in this thread, saden. :)[/quote]

Objective analysis, critical thinking and knowledge of the law have not been saden1's strong suits at any point in this thread.

Bias, demagoguery and ignorance, however ...

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=Chico23231;1015050]So as long as I yell help, I can shoot someone? Thats justification? Ill remember that.[/quote]

I won't insult your intelligence by asserting all Zimmerman did was innocently follow a guy he thought to be was suspicious. Please don't insult mine by asserting that Zimm yelling for help is [I]the only [/I]evidence in support of Zimm's claim of reasonably being in fear of his life.