Trayvon Martin Case

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

I guess we should flush his "that doesn't sound like me" statement down the toilet too? The heart doesn't really come into play, just facts of the case and how insane it is to have someone like Zimmerman stalking people talking about they "always get a way with it" and shooting kids in the heart in the name of self-defense go free.

So no go on a bet? Pussy!

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

I thought more highly of you.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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

I thought more highly of you.

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

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

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

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

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

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

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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

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

This ain't cowboy country

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

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

This ain't cowboy country

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

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

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

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

The jury may do the same thing and, again, IMHO, MUST do the same thing to convict.

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

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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

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

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

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

The jury may do the same thing and, again, IMHO, MUST do the same thing to convict.

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

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

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

Zimmerman Case: The Five Principles of the Law of Self Defense

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

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

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

Zimmerman Case: The Five Principles of the Law of Self Defense

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

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

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

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

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

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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

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

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

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."

Originally Posted by saden1

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

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 PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT HE DID NOT . 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 prima facia claim of self-defense claim wasn't 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 prove its invalidity BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

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

Originally Posted by saden1

You cant create a situation and then peripherally claim self-defense.Zimmerman Case: The Five Principles of the Law of Self Defense

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.