Trayvon Martin Case

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

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.

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?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

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

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 the only evidence in support of Zimm's claim of reasonably being in fear of his life.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

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.

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 the only 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?

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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 the only 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?

Yes. My favorite quote and Zim's direct disregard of the request not to follow or approach is enough to decisively understand exactly who is the aggressor. There was a fight no doubt. They were rolling around in the dark on the ground.

Nobody really cant ask Trayvon if his life was in danger, can they?

Trayvon life was obviously in danger because the armed man following him had already made a decision he wasnt getting away by his own statement and decision to disregard instruction. The aggressor is clear as day.

There is no doubt Zim is responsible for the negligent death of Trayvon.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Yes. My favorite quote and Zim's direct disregard of the request not to follow or approach is enough to decisively understand exactly who is the aggressor. There was a fight no doubt. They were rolling around in the dark on the ground.

Nobody really cant ask Trayvon if his life was in danger, can they?

Trayvon life was obviously in danger because the armed man following him had already made a decision he wasnt getting away by his own statement and decision to disregard instruction. The aggressor is clear as day.

There is no doubt Zim is responsible for the negligent death of Trayvon.

I strongly disagree that there is "no doubt" or that the aggressor is "clear as day". Merely following someone and verbally confronting them, despite anyone's instruction not to, does not make someone a physical aggressor or prove, under any standard of proof except speculation, that the person they were following was in imminent fear of physical harm. While it may have caused TM to be so, based on the testimony of Jeantel, it is just as reasonable for me to believe that Martin held a belief similar to G84C and saden1 that "you follow me, I'ma gonna whoop your ass" particularly as to this "creepy ass cracker".

There is a complete lack of any eyewitnesses of the fight's initiation and only one who had a clear view of the fight in progress - who testified that Martin had Zimmerman pinned to the ground. Even though Good "couldn't tell" if the flailing arms he saw were Martin striking Zimmerman, I believe that, based on the photos at the scene and shortly thereafter, and Zimmerman's cries for help, Martin had Zimmerman pinned on he ground and was beating the sh** out of him. The injuries to Zimmerman look significant to me and a neutral medical professional at the scene stated they could cause someone to reasonalby fear for their medical safety. Also, the fact that Martin exhibited almost no physical indications of being in a fight while Zimmerman was screaming for help and - according to an eyewitness and the photos at the scene - "looked like he had gotten his butt whooped" indicates to me that this was a vicious beat down and not a physical contest in any sense of the word. Zimmerman was not "simply losing a fist fight" as some have asserted - he was being beaten with a reckless abandon as to the injuries being caused.

Your belief as to how the events occurred, while one presenting reasonable scenario, ignores and disregards what I believe to be credible evidence that supports an entirely different and equally plausible description of the events of that evening. Clearly, if you and I were on the jury it would result in a mistrial, because nothing you have said erases the doubts I have as to the events and, obviously, nothing I could say at this point will convince you that it could have happened in any way other than as you have described it.

While I respect your opinion of the events as one sincerely and honestly held, I strongly disagree with it and I believe it to be supported, at least in part, by certain opinions you have held since this case initially hit the news - opinions held based on your own life's experiences rather than the evidence in this case. With that said, I confess that my opinion is likely to be influenced by the same. That's why we have juries - Different people bring different experiences to the discussion.

It's also why we have the law, so that all these differing experiences are held to the same standard. In this case, based on the evidence submitted, I firmly believe no one can state with any reasonable degree of certainty (1)exactly what happened that night or (2) without a doubt, Zimmerman's actions were unreasonable. Because of that, I firmly believe the law requires Zimmerman to found innocent. You disagree.

Finally, while we strongly disagree, I thank you for your (mostly ) respectful approach to the discussion.

[saden1]

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.

Florida Criminal Law Defenses | Criminal Affirmative Defenses

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. **

[JoeRedskin]

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:

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.

The Florida Court:

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.

If there is any conflict, guess which wins. Here, GZ's statement to the police is in evidence and it clearly establishes prima facia 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.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

...... The website sites no cases<SNIP>

'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

[saden1]

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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

Apparently, however, you do not possess the ability to read. Sipple v. State, 972 So. 2d 912, 916 (2007):

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. See Peterka v. State, 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); Henry v. State, 862 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2003); Wright. 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.

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 Sipple case says exactly the opposite [BTW - see the "cert denied" descriptive in the Peterka 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, in this case, GZ doesn't have to prove anything b/c a prima facia 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, if the prosecution's case had not provided the prima facia 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 Sipple, Jenkins and a host of other Florida case law. You can't. You got nothing but ignorance, bias and petulance left.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Apparently, however, you do not possess the ability to read. Sipple v. State, 972 So. 2d 912, 916 (2007):


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 Sipple case says exactly the opposite [BTW - see the "cert denied" descriptive in the Peterka 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, in this case, GZ doesn't have to prove anything b/c a prima facia 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, if the prosecution's case had not provided the prima facia 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 Sipple, Jenkins and a host of other Florida case law. You can't. You got nothing but ignorance, bias and petulance left.

You're muddling the water and you god damn well know it. The Sipple case is all about whether the defendant raised a self-defense claim not that there isn't a greater burden on him once he raised self-defense than a normal defendant. What the court said in the Snipple case is that the defendant raised the a self-defense argument through his police testimony and that his attorney should have done a better job in representing him,


If Zimmerman's defense does not actively provide sufficient evidence to the court to support his self-defense claim the prosecutor can petition the court to force the defense to provide material to support a self-defense claim. If the defense does not then the affirmative defense claim can be thrown out all together. In the Snipple case the court said the defendants statement constitute supporting material.

If Zimmerman doesn't call EMT or any other witnesses and simply used his statements to the police he will most certainly be found guilty. "The word 'affirmative' in 'affirmative defense' refers to the requirement that the defendant prove the defense, as opposed to negating the prosecution’s evidence of an element of the crime.

As a lawyer you should know all of this! A lowly software engineer should have to fcking explain this shit to you.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

You're muddling the water and you god damn well know it. The Sipple case is all about whether the defendant raised a self-defense claim not that there isn't a greater burden on him once he raised self-defense than a normal defendant. What the court said in the Snipple case is that the defendant raised the a self-defense argument through his police testimony and that his attorney should have done a better job in representing,


If Zimmerman's defense does not actively provide sufficient evidence to the court to support his self-defense claim the prosecutor can petition the court to force the defense to provide material to support a self-defense claim. If the defense does not then the affirmative defense claim can be thrown out all together. In the Snipple case the court said the defendants statement constitute supporting material.

If Zimmerman doesn't call EMT or any other witnesses and simply used his statements to the police he will most certainly be found guilty. "The word 'affirmative' in 'affirmative defense' refers to the requirement that the defendant prove the defense, as opposed to negating the prosecution’s evidence of an element of the crime.

As a lawyer you should know all of this! A lowly software engineer should have to fcking explain this shit to you.

You simply have no idea what you are talking about. Shephardize Sipple and see what the cases say. I am tired of quoting it for you.

In the matter at hand, a prima facia claim of self-defense has been made and, as such, Zimmerman does not need to prove the existence of a reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense because it is presumed such as a matter of law. It is now up the State to disprove one or more of the elements of self defense beyond a reasonable doubt to invalidate the defense. If they fail to do so, the jury must acquit. In arguing the State failed to meet its burden, Zimmerman can rely on any admitted evidence regardless of who elicited or submitted it.

It is just that simple.

[FRPLG]

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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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.

Close, but, in light of Sipple, I don't think your step 2 is necessary - GZ's statement to the police is all that's needed. Bottom line, a "prima facia" 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 GZ 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 Sipple, the cases cited therein and subsequent case law citing Sipple, 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.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

(snip).

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?