Trayvon Martin Case

[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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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 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.



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.

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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

I swear, I am going to start yelling again.

"Prove might have been the wrong word"? YES. IT WAS. In fact, it is a blatantly 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!

With nothing more from GZ, and based on the indictment, the burden is entirely on the State to show - BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT - 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 any one of these elements to be invalid beyond a reasonable doubt?" [NOTE: If the State does do so, then, and only then, 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) Innocence: 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) Imminence: Self defense, the right to use violence is only acceptable when threatened with imminent physical harm.

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

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

(5) Reasonableness: 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.e. beyond a reasonable doubt - invalid?

Innocence: 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 and 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.

Imminence: 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 may 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.

Proportionality: 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 to eliminate all reasonable doubts as to the reasonableness of GZ's asserted fear. From your article:

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.

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 no 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.]

Avoidance: 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 precluding 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.

Reasonableness: 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 guarantee 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.