General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI think some people are in for a surprise Re: Zimmerman.
The majority of people seems to think that he will walk. I would not be surprised if he is convicted of murder or manslaughter.
Here is why:
The argument that he will walk rests on the assumption that proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense is impossible.
I think this is wrong. I think the fallacy is that people ignoring the possibility of disproving the inverse.
Either it was self-defense or it was not self-defense. There are only these two options. One of these must be true, and if one is true the other isn't.
For it to have been self-defense, Trayvon Martin must have been a threat to Zimmerman's life. I think there is the possibility that the jury will see an innocent teenager, against whom charges of him being a threat to Zimmerman's life are implausible beyond any reasonable doubt.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Pelican
(1,156 posts)Subtle but important difference...
redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)galileoreloaded
(2,571 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)....and as talking heads pointed out, he was the intial agressor, he had the gun, he perceived himself as in authroty. As soon as his butt landed on the pavement, suddenly his perception is that he may get the rest of his sorry ass whooped...he felt threatened. The threat wasn't initated at him, but by him.
Crepuscular
(1,057 posts)and the threat is not limited to just the belief that the persons life is in danger, it also applies to the threat of great bodily harm, which presents a lower metric needed to be met.
The perception that someone could kill you with just their fists might be a fairly high standard to meet, the perception that someone could cause you serious injury with just their fists takes less imagination of the behalf of a juror.
Warpy
(111,277 posts)We'll see if the defense attorneys managed to convict him.
This has been one of the most shameful exercises in blaming the victim I've seen since a friend was put on trial for having been raped. Her rapist walked, of course.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)..the PROSECUTION atty affirmed the defense theory that Martin was astride Zimmerman, when acting it out.
And apparently the prosecution atty even positioned the gun wrongly in that demonstration. In the reenactment, Zimmerman showed that his gun was tucked into his waistband at his back, under his coat and shirt. The prosecution atty apparently didn't watch that. He was attempting to show the gun holstered on Zimmerman's leg at his front side.
Thanks to MSNBC's expert for pointing out both those errors on the part of the prosecution.
brush
(53,791 posts)Wouldn't a straddling Martin have blocked zimmy's arm from reaching for the gun under and behind his hip, because that's exactly where Martin's knee and thigh would be if he were the one doing the straddling. If what zimmerman alleges is true (not my belief), his arms may have been free to move in front of a straddler's thighs but that would be it.
He would have had to reach around and under Martin's knee and thigh and under his own hip to get to the gun tucked into the rear attached holster. That would not only take arms about a foot longer but arms of Herculean strength to lift up his big body, weighed down even more by Martin's) enough to get the gun out from under all that weight.
And wasn't wannabe boy also taking MMA classes 3 times a week for a year? Didn't he learn anything about leverage and how to use his weigh advantage instead of just allowing a teen boy who he outweighed by 40 lbs, and who he had superior adult male upper body strength over, to just pummel him like a helpless rag doll without any offering any resistance?
And after all that alleged head bashing on concrete, he just needed a band-aid for treatment, no concussion, no skull fracture, no hemotoma, no blood on the sidewalk?
Sounds like he conked himself on the back of the head and nose with his own gun after he realized that he had fucked up big time by killing the kid instead of making the "heroic" citizen's arrest he had envisioned.
That would explain how it was his own blood on his own gun, not Martin's.
Sorry, zimmy's story does not compute. And neither does your support for that killer.
LittleGirl
(8,287 posts)
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)EVEN if it was holstered on his side? That would have been IMPOSSIBLE ...UNLESS, he was MR FANTASTIC and why not? It turns oout that Trayvon was a HINDU god with at least 8 arms and hands who had XRAY & INFRARED vision. 
brush
(53,791 posts)John2
(2,730 posts)this up now. Where was his gun when he claimed Martin grabbed for it? Where was his gun when he lifted his arm to show the police? Why do we even have to believe Zimmerman's Bullshit?
grasswire
(50,130 posts)....behind his back to get his gun that was in his waistband at the back and under his coat and shirt.
Warpy
(111,277 posts)(presumably on his back since his front showed little injury) and he reached around his back and grabbed a gun?
That does not compute.
And he'd still have had to go through Martin's knee and thigh unless he's able to decrease the length of his humerus at will.
Face it, this story has more holes than the safety net.
brush
(53,791 posts)zimmerman himself said his holster is one of the rear attached in the pants ones behind his hip.
If he was on the ground straddled he nor the straddler would have been able to get to it.
zimmy's whole story is a pack of lies.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)if TM knew of GZ's weapon, or could get it. The bodily harm language in the law lets GZ find and draw his weapon and use it. Remember that defense witness who said, if you're not winning the fight in 30 seconds, change tactics, because you're not winning?
GZ embellished all kinds of crap for Hannity, he was seeking donations at that point and wanted to gin up the reich wing to provide him some cash. It was a mistake on the part of the prosecution to enter the Hannity interview into the trial, the defense would have gotten their asses kicked if they had done so.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)It was valuable in bringing his credibility into
question.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)If the defense had brought it in, they'd have been pummelled. The prosecution did a lousy job.
anneboleyn
(5,611 posts)how Zimmerman's story about Trayvon's hands being here, there, and everywhere, covering Zimmerman's mouth, beating his head, reaching for the gun, etc. seemed impossible -- and how it would have been impossible for Zimmerman to reach his gun if Trayvon was on top of him, holding him down, as he claims.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Keepin' your head, Anne!
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)
zeeland
(247 posts)" ...a teenager is dead. He is dead because another "MAN" made assumptions." A video of the State
making this statement has been played over and over in the media. I understand this is subtle, but
it is not an accident or sloppiness on the part of the States attorney. There have been many instances
like this. This is Martin vs. Martin.
Florida is interested in protecting the image of Florida. Nothing must interfere with it's tourist trade.
As beautiful and as lovely as many of it's citizens are, Florida is the last place I will ever set foot in
regardless of the outcome.
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)"Martin was the only one on trial so far.
We'll see if the defense attorneys managed to convict him. "
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I am fearful the jury will include at least one bigot, likely more.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)because I could easily see them getting pressured and influenced at home to acquit.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)Logic and common sense to weigh the evidence. At least I was, more than once, when I served on a jury.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)the defense needs to present Trayvon as a hulking black threat, not some mother's child out buying sweets!
redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)And I think the jury will not see him as a threat. Alas, maybe I under-estimate the power of bigotry.
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)The fact that there was no significant injury will weigh heavily against the claim he had a reasonable belief his life was in danger. The fact that he did indeed train for fighting, despite the ludicrous pretense this had brought him no benefit in an actual scrap, actually shows he knew better than to think he faced deadly danger. The fact that he lied about knowing the law regarding self-defense makes it a very reasonable inference that he tailored his accounts to meet the requirements of the law for justification, rather than giving an honest description of the actual events.
redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)so many lies, so many holes in his story, to boot...
anomiep
(153 posts)How much injury there is, or isn't, is not relevant. He also does not have to fear that his life was in danger, the legal standard there is 'fear of death or great bodily harm'. Note carefully the 'or' there.
If I take a baseball bat and swing it at your head, with full intent to injure you, and you move your head and I miss, does the fact that there is no injury mean that you could not have possibly feared great bodily harm? Of course not.
The same goes even for unarmed assaults - if the circumstances are such that it is reasonable to fear great bodily harm, the standard is met, whether or not any injuries sustained are major or minor, or even in fact if there are no injuries at all.
The extent of injury may support that it was reasonable to fear great bodily injury but it is not in fact required, nor is it required that 'deadly danger' be faced.
The relevant Florida law is here:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)...threat than the 200lbs, physically fit grown man who trained MMA for a year and had a gun
anomiep
(153 posts)Is it reasonable that a man who had trained for a year at an MMA gym, whose trainer testified that he was in better shape than he had been but still not physically fit, and for whom there has been no evidence that I am aware of presented that he actually participated in MMA bouts of any sort (sparring, etc), could get jumped and beat up by a 150lb teenager who was actually in shape?
It can happen. When I was a 150lb teenager (6'2" at the time and stick skinny) I actually won a (friendly) tussle against a guy who had an inch and a hundred pounds on me - and I've never trained in *any* kind of fighting.
This is not to suggest that it is certain that it did happen between Martin and Zimmerman, but to act as though it's impossible is IMHO not at all reasonable - and the real question here is, did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it did not happen?
When the prosecution is arguing that it could have happened this way, could have happened that, that is a very bad sign for the prosecution. "it could have happened like this, could have happened like that" is how you introduce reasonable doubt, it is not how you prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)I mean, what are the odds someone signs up just now to argue Zimmerman should be acquitted, who just happens to have a been a tall skinny teen-ager who once won a fight against a guy much heavier than him, just like Zimmerman claims happened to him at the hands of young Mr. Martin?
anomiep
(153 posts)Actually, mathematically, the probability that *someone* should have an anecdotally analogous experience should be fairly large, given a 300 million people population, although I haven't specifically calculated them. The odds that any individual person experienced that would, of course, be lower.
The incident I am talking about occurred in 1993 and was no more that a couple of friends, at that age, doing what boys sometimes do .
If you'd like to accuse me of lying, please provide evidence that I have actually done so. If you can't - this is no more than an ad-hominem attack.
As far as the reasonableness of someone being able to win a fight against someone with a weight advantage: Please do a google search for videos with the terms "skinny guy beats up fat guy" and let me know if you *don't* find any.
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)Far too tailored to the argument you are attempting to press to command the slightest credence. Your pretense at probability analysis over-looks that it is not just whether somewhere a tall skinny kid has won a scrap against a big fellow, but also the probability that that once skinny and victorious kid should have just been moved to sign up on Democratic Underground to argue we should all credit Zimmerman's account of the deadly peril he faced at the hands of a teen-age boy he shot through the heart. It is possible to press my courtesy, as well as my credulity, well past breaking strain....
anomiep
(153 posts)However, the incident I related is absolutely true, it was not 'made up' just to make a point.
From my perspective it looks quite a bit like you *want* to believe it is unlikely just so you can "discredit" me, in your own mind, and while you do have the right to be credulous - I have the right to take into account my personal knowledge that what I stated actually did happen, and adjust my assessment of your ability to recognize truth accordingly.
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)"On the internet, no one knows you're a dog."
"My god, man --- slap yourself and think!"
anomiep
(153 posts)Have you done the web search I asked, and can you honestly say that you have not found videos where someone at a height and weight disadvantage prevailed?
You haven't talked about that at all, and I'd wager the reason is because you know that you wouldn't honestly be able to say that.
zeeland
(247 posts)Do your own damn research. I can't remember the last time I read someone
say that on DU. 
To whom it's being said makes it all the more amusing.
And I found plenty of videos of smaller guys pounding on bigger guys.
Some of bigger guys pounding on smaller guys, too.
The point wasn't to have him do my research. The point was to see if he'd even try to claim it, because it's immediately refutable. Heck, someone else posted a video of a smaller guy dropping a bigger guy in this very thread (with what is essentially a sucker punch, you can sort of see the smaller guy draw attention to the smaller guy's right and then hit him in the head with a hard left. Zimmerman's claim is that he was sucker punched. I don't know if that claim is true, but it is generally consistent with one of the means of a smaller guy prevailing over a larger).
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Even if it is true, who can know?
For reasonable doubt for this jury (my opinion only)
they will not get snagged on stuff like that:
"... but sometimes a skinny 16 year old
can beat up a 29 year old guy... even if he is 40
pounds heavier ... and has been training for a year
in Mixed Martial Arts... so maybe, maybe George really
was fighting for his life..."
Reasonable doubt has to be based in evidence,
I think, it has to be based in fact and in
common sense. The jury has no obligation to
believe anyone.
As I understand it, reasonable doubt has to
admit that everything the prosecution
presented as fact is fact -- and that despite
the facts and evidence, reasonable doubt remains.
Such that a reasonable person would have a reasonable
amount of doubt. Not a vague doubt, or a shred of
a doubt, or a shadow of a doubt.
In this case, my opinion, the jury only needs to
have reasonable doubt about Zimmerman's honesty.
Reasonable doubt about his version of things.
Reasonable doubt that he had no other option
except to kill that boy.
If they have such doubt..?
Do you think they will let him walk, if they have
reasonable doubt about his innocence? A man
who has killed a kid? A man who walks around
with a gun ready to shoot anybody he suspects
is a threat to him? I don't believe they will, unless
they are very dumb and seriously biased.
According to the facts he is guilty
at the very least of manslaughter of a child,
using a gun. He is facing 25 years to life on
either count I believe..
Of course I'm only speculating what the jury
will decide. I have no idea who they are.
anomiep
(153 posts)The tale *I* told was true. I also know that for the point I was making, it doesn't matter whether or not the tale *I* told was true - what matters is whether or not people who are at a height and weight disadvantage can prevail. Claiming that I was lying is both factually incorrect (although I do recognize he has no way of knowing that) and nothing more than an ad-hominem fallacy (and honestly, I've been considering posting a photo of myself from back then to at least establish that I am not lying about being 6'2" and 150lbs back then - but on the other hand, why should I be inclined to bother with trying to prove anything to someone whose first interaction with me is to basically claim I'm a liar?)
You are wrong about reasonable doubt. There are certain circumstances in which all presented evidence has to be treated in favor of the prosecution, but those are generally the domain of particular types of motions.
Once it's to a jury - reasonable doubt is all on the jury. They get to decide what 'fact' is when there is a dispute. There are sometimes witness accounts that conflict, there's sometimes data that conflicts, it is not reasonable to have a standard where everything the prosecution presents as fact has to be assumed to be fact. Seriously, think about how hard it would be to be acquitted *even if you were innocent* if 'reasonable doubt' had to assume that anything the prosecution presented as fact was fact. All the prosecution would *ever* have to do is present as 'fact' that any defendant was a liar, or present as 'fact' that the only possible interpretation was theirs, and, thank you, but I think we have too many innocent people in jail already.
I am not claiming anything in particular about Martin or Zimmerman. I am claiming that to treat a height and/or weight disadvantage as though it were somehow an absolute guarantee is not logically valid - because it isn't.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)I thought I had read it somewhere. As soon as
I read it I became an imaginary expert.
This is a bad habit I am trying to break.
anomiep
(153 posts)It's something I think everyone does to some extent (including myself, naturally - although I try not to as much as possible, it can be a pretty hard thing to not ever slip up on)
frylock
(34,825 posts)totally out of character and well played, sir!
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)It is unkind to refuse a person who begs to be kicked so strenuously....
frylock
(34,825 posts)again, well played!
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)it's always Sir or Madam.. what has happened?
Cronus Protagonist
(15,574 posts)But I've never heard a trained MMA enthusiast with a gun cry like he's a young boy with a gun barrel stuck in his chest and there's a crazed lunatic giving him the death stare.
By the way, the prosecution does not have to prove a negative. That is not the standard. Nice try, though.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)the parts where various people (his MMA trainer included) testified that he was NOT physically fit.
And that he was not exactly proficient in MMA.
SwissTony
(2,560 posts)compared to the "general public"? I used to teach karate and "fit" people used to walk into our school and we'd set about getting them fitter. Some of them didn't get as fit as we would have liked and we would have described them as not "physically fit". Our school was not MMA but we had pretty rugged kumite (sparring) and I suspect an MMA school would have even higher standards of fitness than we had.
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)"COMMON SENSE" 
Bravo sir because this is the point I was trying to make.
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)apparently thought he was a good enough fighter that he USED THE FACT THAT ZIMMY TRAINED AT HIS GYM as a RECRUITMENT for NEW CLIENTS on HIS WEBSITE? Gee, I wonder why he did that IF he thought zimmy was as much of a 200lb weakling he told the court? 
anomiep
(153 posts)What you are claiming is 'recruitment' is nothing more than a web form that states that if you send them your name and your email address information through the form they will send you information on how they trained Zimmerman after the trial.
There's nothing on it that says 'come train at our gym' or 'we'll train you like we trained him' or anything like that.
There may be once the trial is over (for all I know they're doing it to pad their email address list) but representing it as recruitment at this time is not justified.
The articles and the like that are claiming that they will be offering a package based on how Zimmerman was trained, etc, appear to me to be wildly inaccurate, but look at the form for yourself: http://www.kogym.com/zimmerman.htm
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)for MMA training svcs? If zimmy was as sh*tty a fighter as his lawyers and witnesses are saying, why the fuck would he be used in advertising the GYM? Ostensibly, the "BEST MMA GYM in the world"? REALLY? Are you honestly trying to tell me that it isn't what it IS? With a straight face?
anomiep
(153 posts)Look at the link. Is that really advertising?
I don't know whether or not it will be used as such later, but again, right now, it's nothing more than 'Send us your name and email, we'll send you information on his training after the trial'.
It seems to me to be reasonable to withhold judgement on whether it's actually advertising or just 'hey, we were involved, we'll give the info out if people ask for it' until what they send is actually out there.
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)whether this is advertising or not....AND IT IS!!
anomiep
(153 posts)It's a page with two input boxes and a statement that they will send out information on zimmerman's training after the trial.
Explain how that all by itself is advertising. I recognize that they may use it for advertising in the future, and if they do, at that time I'll freely admit that their *current* intent was advertising. Heck, I'll even give that it's reasonable to think that they may intend to use those names for advertising (mailing list, etc).
... but what if what they send out is a record of what classes he attended and when? Can you *guarantee* that's not what it will be?
Seriously, explain how that is absolutely, right now, with 100% certainty, advertising. If you're the expert, you can explain it, right?
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)It's something called ON PAGE SEO, SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMISATION, meaning that when someone googles zimmy's name in combination with MMA training at that gym, GUESS WHAT COMES UP? You understand that?
Yes, i do understand that search engines will pick it up. Search engines will pick that up simply because the information is out there to begin with. You claimed six web pages makes you more knowledgeable - are you aware that I'm a computer programmer and have build more web backends in a single year than you claim to run in totality? I'd wager I know more about how the internet works in a technical sense than you do, hands down. That's irrelevant to the point I'm making.
Now, where on that page is the claim made that they will train anyone like they trained Zimmerman? Or a claim of 'hey, we trained zimmerman, come train with us?'
That's right - it's not there.
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)you're being deliberately stupid and though I am NOT going to argue this point further with you because you're QUITE clear that you believe Trayvon deserved his own murder, EVEN THE COURT & lawyers felt that LEGALLY the posting of that info COMPLETELY negated that MMA Moron's testimony that zippy was basically a soft, 200lb Pillsbury Doughboy. Now, you can say anything you can to claim that it wasn't advertising. (Knock yourself out doing and saying ANYTHING you want to say that it wasn't advertising) but anything that search engines pick up and it results in folks signing up for more information, (and you and I both know that a percentage will join), IT. IS. AN ADVERTISEMENT. PERIOD!!!!
The people who want them set their requirements based on wanting to generate money. The generation of money from making them is dependent on there being people who are dependent on them for money.
Do you think it is ridiculous that someone who makes sites would be asked (and therefore have to research, etc) how to optimize search placement? Who's being obtuse now?
lumpy
(13,704 posts)He had enough strength to throw a grown woman against a wall and get into other confrontations.
His passion, zeal and temperment and a gun must have been his primary strength then.
His story is not to be believed at any rate, the head banging by Martin, the question of who was on top when the shooting occurred etc.
onenote
(42,714 posts)felt threatened, viewing the situation through the eyes of the defendant. Zimmerman had a gun. That doesn't impact the legal issue of whether he felt threatened at all. In any situation where someone is asserting self-defense they had the means to take the action that forms the basis of the prosecution. Or put another way, the fact that a person has the means available to them to defend themselves does not disqualify them from asserting that they were acting in self-defense.
Ultimately, under Florida law (and this is crystal clear), the jury's duty is decide whether, based on the evidence, the state has rebutted beyond any reasonable doubt the assertion that Zimmerman's defense has made that he had a reasonable fear for his life.
While you or I, as jurors, might conclude the state had proved the absence of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, I certainly am in no position to predict, given the conflicting evidence provided and the importance of the juror's assessment of the credibility of various witnesses (such as the witnesses claiming variously that it was Martin screaming or Zimmerman screaming) what the outcome will be.
anomiep
(153 posts)I have been watching the trial daily. There are portions that I missed, of course, but I caught the majority of it, and I'm listening to the prosecution close right now.
I don't feel the prosecution has adequately shown that it wasn't self defense. To be clear - I do *not* think that means it has been proven that it was self defense. It is entirely *possible* that Zimmerman started the fight, etc. I don't think they've proven it, and I think that they at portions in the trial basically resorted to defense-like argument of 'it's also consistent with it happening this other way, right?" shows that.
I hope that the verdict comes back in line with reality, whether that's 'not guilty' or 'guilty'. (In other words, I hope that the verdict aligns with what actually happened, given that I don't think it's necessarily sufficiently proven one way or the other) - but with respect to what the state has actually proven, I don't think they've shown anything that is materially inconsistent with Zimmerman's story. Lawyers advise people not to do what Zimmerman did (make statements, be interviewed, etc) precisely because prosecuting attorneys will try to claim that small inconsistencies that you should actually *expect* from someone who is telling the truth (telling a story with too much consistency can be an indicator of a rehearsed story) are evidence of some huge deception.
I mean, right now, the prosecutor just argued that the fact that he knew the street at the time of a walkthrough means that he was lying about not knowing the street at the time of the event. Well, of course that could happen - the walkthrough was long after the event. He may well be lying about not knowing the name of the street - but what the prosecution just argued is not actually evidence of a lie.
The Magistrate
(95,247 posts)Employment of a weapon establishes reasonable belief one's life is in peril.
Florida law requires, when an aggressor makes a claim of self-defense, that he or she reasonably believe threat of death or great bodily harm exists. Great bodily harm is harm that could result in death.
To claim one faces such a threat, from an un-armed person, when one is oneself armed, is a hard sell to any reasonable person. The absence of any significant injury makes it an even harder sell.
Jurors are not lawyers. The claim you press is what someone who wanted to acquit, regardless of evidence, might maintain to justify acting on that predisposition. It is not what would be expected of a reasonable person assessing whether a claim of acting in self-defense was warranted.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)n
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)(who uses a gun), any mugger, any carjacker, any gangbanger, any violent stalker, any domestic abuser-<<ANYONE>> who uses gun in the commission of a crime, is JUSTIFIED simply because he uses a weapon? REALLY? I humbly, though STRONGLY disagree. I mean think about what by your statement, ANY creep with a gun is justified in using it because by the very possession of the firearm means that they had a reasonable belief that their life might be in danger. NOPE, IMO. that makes NO SENSE. I'm sorry but by your rationale, any nut with a gun is justified if they MURDER anyone they come across because they had a gun to begin with.
anomiep
(153 posts)"The word “serious,” when used to define the degree of bodily injury, means dangerous, grave, grievous, or great, as distinguished from slight. It is a bodily injury which has important or dangerous possible consequences. Serious bodily injury may include, but does not require, serious permanent disfigurement or a protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ. The determination of whether a bodily injury constitutes serious bodily injury is solely a question of fact for the jury."
It does not have to be harm that could result in death. It includes such but does not have to rise to that level.
galileoreloaded
(2,571 posts)cheyanne
(733 posts)The jury must decide the issue only on the basis of evidence given in court. There are several interpretations of that evidence, each of which provides a different narrative of what happened. Some jury members may believe one version and others may believe another. The final test: has the prosecution presented evidence that totally excludes beyond a reasonable doubt that it could have been self-defense.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)they must prove that Zimmerman's fears were real and reasonable.
onenote
(42,714 posts)The burden of proof is on the prosecution, even as to the issue of self-defense. The law in Florida (and most other jurisdictions) is clear on this.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)"In criminal trials, the most common affirmative defenses include self-defense, defense of others and insanity. Duress, entrapment and involuntary intoxication are used less often.
To see how one of these defenses works, let's look at the pending Trayvon Martin trial. George Zimmerman will undoubtedly argue that he acted in self-defense as defined by Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. There's absolutely no question that he killed Martin. If he can successfully prove he acted in self-defense, the law says he cannot be convicted of murder. He will go free.
The same analysis would apply to almost all of the affirmative defenses -- if accepted by the judge or jury, the defendant goes free. The only affirmative defense that differs is insanity. "
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)prove anything.
He claims self-defense.
It's up to prosecution to prove that it was NOT self defense.
stranger81
(2,345 posts)Self defense is called an "affirmative defense" because it carries an affirmative burden of proof. The state must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it does, Z can can claim self defense but has to prove it.
onenote
(42,714 posts)Because you are simply wrong.
ThoughtCriminal
(14,047 posts)onenote
(42,714 posts)then my question to you is whether you simply are ignoring the standard Florida jury instruction and case law quoted in post #55 or are unware of it. It would have to be one or the other.
stranger81
(2,345 posts)Get back to me once you've been through law school and about two decades of practice, m'kay?
onenote
(42,714 posts)And I'm curious why the actual Florida jury instruction and case law I cited has made absolutely no impression on you. I'm also curious why you don't seem to understand the difference between the legal concepts of "burden of proof" and "burden of going forward." In a criminal case in Florida, the defendant asserting self-defense has no burden of proof. Rather he or she has the burden of going forward --- of presenting evidence that, if true, would support a claim of self defense. The defense has no obligation to "prove" the truth of that evidence. Rather the burden of proof falls entirely on the state to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not act out of self-defense.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)Because an affirmative defense requires an assertion of facts beyond those claimed by the plaintiff, generally the party who offers an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof.[6] The standard of proof is typically lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. It can either be proved by clear and convincing evidence or by a preponderance of the evidence.
So then...contrary to what some want to believe, it would appear that perhaps Z's lawyers have made their case for self defense. Otherwise, why would the prosecution still be trying so hard to prove that it wasn't?
onenote
(42,714 posts)In Florida the state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense. The "burden" on the defendant, such as it is, is not even a preponderance of the evidence standard or a clear and convincing evidence standard. Its less than either of those. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe the Florida courts:
"the law did not require defendant to prove his justification of self-defense to any standard measuring an assurance of truth. He did not have to prove the exigency of self-defense to a near certainty (reasonable doubt) or even to a mere probability (greater weight). His only burden was to offer additional facts from which it could be true, that his resort to such force could have been reasonable."
Murray v. State, www.4dca.org/Sept%202006/09-13-06/4D05-3691.op.pdf.
Here is how the jury instruction in the state of Florida states it:
If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.
However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.
In other words, the Jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified (not convinced that it was justified) or the Jury is supposed to acquit.
onenote
(42,714 posts)From the Florida Standard Criminal Jury Instructions:
If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.
However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.
In other words, the burden is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense, not on the defendant to prove that it was. Any doubt regarding this has been resolved by the Florida courts. See, for example, Murray v. State, www.4dca.org/Sept%202006/09-13-06/4D05-3691.op.pdf, where the court stated: "the law did not require defendant to prove his justification of self-defense to any standard measuring an assurance of truth. He did not have to prove the exigency of self-defense to a near certainty (reasonable doubt) or even to a mere probability (greater weight). His only burden was to offer additional facts from which it could be true, that his resort to such force could have been reasonable."
John2
(2,730 posts)it either. The defense hasn't proven why Martin shouldn't have the right to self defense either, given Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, and followed Martin with a loaded gun. And the only life threatening injury in the entire affair came from Zimmerman's actions. Martin was the party defending himself in a life threatening situation, not Zimmerman. His life was never in danger, given his injuries.
This man has an excuse for everything, which is consistent to liars.
1. He got out to look for a street sign, in an area he lived in. He didn't recognize it because he had a bad memory.
2. He just happened to forget about not pursuing a person on community watch and stopped when the operator told him.
3. He didn't mean Trayvon was running away but instead walking very fast. he just made a mistake when he said it.
4. He just happened to go in the same direction as Trayvon.
5. He got a gun because of a vicious dog attacking his wife and the law enforcement person told him to get a gun.
6. He always carries a loaded gun with the safety off in his holster.
7. Trayvon jumped out of the bushes, when he was walking back, after looking for an address from the area he just came from. Oh wait, no bushes, he just came out of the Dark.
8. Trayvon threatened him and called him "homie," while knocking him to ground. That is a pretty good punch for a 158 pound boy on a 204 pound grown man. I had to get that in there.
9. He was too dazed, from the first punch while Trayvon got on top of him and started slamming his head on the side walk. He wasn't dazed enough to start screaming for help fifty times though.
10, He also wasn't dazed enough to politely ask Mr John Good, help me with this guy. Unfortunately nobody helped poor little Mr Zimmerman from badboy Martin
11. He wasn't too dazed to see Martin grab for his gun either. I wonder when his head started clearing up after the first Martin KO? It must have been when Martin was slamming that fat head on the cement.
!2 He had enough strenght to get the gun first and pull the trigger before Martin killed him. I wonder when he thought his life was in danger. Was it when Martin saw his gun or after Martin slammed his head on the cement? Which situation should we apply reason too?
!3, Martin gave the last audition, by saying, You got me. No wonder he didn't say what a World.
That is Zimmerman's reasonable doubt, if you want t6o believe this bullshit.
onenote
(42,714 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 11, 2013, 05:03 PM - Edit history (1)
Once Zimmerman put in a modicum of evidence (the witness that testified he saw Martin on top, the witnesses that claimed it was Zimmerman screaming, the scratches on Zimmerman's head), the burden fell entirely on the prosecution to convince the jury, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman could not reasonably have feared for his life. I'm not saying that a jury couldn't reach that conclusion, just that the jury has to find that the prosecution has rebutted the claim of self defense, not that the defense has proven it. (In other words, the jury has to be persuaded that it was not self defense. They don't have to be persuaded that it was).
one of the criticism I had for the prosecution. That was very easy to rebutt.
The injuries or busted nose, doesn't prove Zimmerman was defending himself. Whatever injuries you place on your attacker proves you defended yourself. The only evidence, Zimmermen defended himself against Trayvon was shooting him.
On the contrary, the injuries, if they did come from Trayvon, proved Trayvon fought back. It proved Trayvon injured his attacker. What do people do when fighting for their life? They kick, punch, scream and scratch, to escape their attacker. If the attacker has a gun, all they have to do is shoot you. Zimmerman is the only person had a gun, knew it was loaded and how to use it. He knew he had that ability all the time. So why was he screaming for help? The jury can figure that out for themselves, because Zimmerman's explanation is such bullshit.
Good didn't say, he was 100 percent about it was Zimmerman screaming for help either. And Good's testimony should be placed in doubt, considering his clarifying explanations. Zimmerman even claimed it was too dark. so how did Good see what he claims? Good also claims he told them to stop. His voice never comes up on any calls, that you hear calling help. So why would Good leave when a man he knew was getting beat MMA style, not intervene? So if this man's life was in danger, Good decides to leave and call 911, while this guy is getting beat to death? That is why I don't believe Good saw what he claims. His testimony is too perfect for Zimmerman's Theme. That is where I suspect police misconduct. I don't trust their investigation or Serino. I'm sorry, but I just don't. They seemed to be coaching Zimmerman about the weaknesses in his defense, instead of conducting an investigation. That is why I thought the prosecution would best bring every witness, specifically the boy and his mother. Serino claimed police were friendly to the Martins. Why didm't the prosecution call them, because Serino seemed like a hostile witness to the prosecution?
anomiep
(153 posts)With there being essentially no injury on Martin *other* than the gunshot? Does that really make sense to you?
Injury all by itself isn't evidence of being assaulted or defending yourself, it's evidence you got hit. So is your position that Zimmerman assaulted Martin by not hitting him? Zimmerman could have swung and missed completely, I suppose, but I don't know if there's any evidence that actually happened.
stranger81
(2,345 posts)(1) The state bears the burden of proving the elements of the crimes alleged against Z.
(2) Once the state has carried that burden (as evidenced by Judge Nelson's denial of Z's acquittal motion at the conclusion of the state's case), if the defendant is asserting an affirmative defense (like Z is, by pleading self-defense), the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove the elements of his affirmative defense.
(3) Assuming the defendant carries the burden of proving the elements of his affirmative defense, the burden of proof shifts back to the state to rebut that showing.
You are correct that the quantum of evidence required to carry the burden of proof is somewhat lower than the state's burden of proof, which requires evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is simply incorrect to say only the state bears a burden of proof where, as here, the defendant is relying on an affirmative defense.
**edited for typos**
onenote
(42,714 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 12, 2013, 09:03 AM - Edit history (1)
The defense does not bear any burden of proof. It bears a burden of going forward, meaning it has to put forward evidence that, if true, would support its claim of self-defense. It is under no obligation to prove the truth of that evidence; rather the state has the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not act in self defense.
Not every state follows this approach. For example, in Ohio, the law expressly states that "the burden of going forward with the evidence of an affirmative defense, and the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, for an affirmative defense, is upon the accused." But as the Murray case, which I've quoted in several posts, makes clear, in Florida, the defendant only has the burden of going forward and does not have the burden of proof, even by the preponderance of the evidence standard.
The concepts of burden of going forward (aka burden of production) and the burden of proof (aka burden of persuasion) are distinct and the distinction is significant.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)I think a lot of people are saying that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's version isn't true. I think that's wrong. Why does the jury have to assume Zimmerman was telling the truth and go from there? His version isn't evidence and they know he killed Trayvon. I believe it's possible the jurors may simply not believe any of what Z said to police and therefore his self-defense claim won't hold up.
I also think if they don't believe Z they may come to the conclusion that it was Trayvon who was defending himself against an armed vigilante.
A lot of people want to look at this like lawyers or cops but at the end of the day the jurors are just regular people and they will base their verdict on what a reasonable person would do and believe in these circumstances.
And I do think the murder 2 charge is the correct one.
I think a lot of people are saying that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's version isn't true. I think that's wrong. Why does the jury have to assume Zimmerman was telling the truth and go from there?
Why?
Because that's how it works. Innocent until proven guilty.
IOW, has the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty...
If you were a defendant in a criminal trial, wouldn't you want the same standard?
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)We already know, as does the jury, that he killed someone. In order to acquit Zimmerman, the jury has to believe his story on some level. It's really not enough (or shouldn't be) just to say it was self defense and then make the prosecutors prove a negative. I think they have poked many holes in Z's story, which I quite frankly just don't believe, and that may be enough for the jury to convict him.
As I said, these are regular citizens and they have to decide if Zimmerman acted in a reasonable manner and if a reasonable person would have feared for their life in the same circumstances.
onenote
(42,714 posts)That is Florida law. Zimmerman's defense merely has to provide a modicum of evidence supporting a claim of self-defense. He's done that with testimony that Martin was on top, that it was Zimmerman screaming, that the scratches on his head were inflicted by Martin.
With that testimony in evidence, it becomes the burden of the prosecution to rebut such evidence so thoroughly that a juror could conclude beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no way it was self defense. I'm not saying that a juror, based on the evidence couldn't reach that conclusion , but it would mean that a juror would have to totally reject the defense witnesses' versions of events (i.e., conclude that they are certain Martin was not on top, conclude that there is no way it was Zimmerman screaming, conclude that Zimmerman incurred injuries in some other fashion than through the actions of Martin) and/or conclude that even if those things are true, it was, beyond any reasonable doubt, not reasonable for Zimmerman to fear that he might suffer great bodily harm or death at Martin's hands.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)But personally, I don't believe Zimmerman's version so it wouldn't be hard for me to reject it. Like, I think it's possible Trayvon may have been on top at one point, but I reject the idea that doesn't mean he wasn't defending himself. Another witness put Zimmerman on top and really believed it was Trayvon screaming. This happened in what a minute? I'm not a voice expert but I believe it was Trayvon. I disagree also with your assertion that if Trayvon hit Z it means Z is not guilty. Trayvon had the right to defend himself too and I think that's what he was doing.
And in the end the jury doesn't have to decide if Zimmerman had a reasonable fear for his life (which I don't believe anyway) but that a reasonable person would have that fear. That may be the key.
onenote
(42,714 posts)All I said (or at least all I was trying to say) is that if juror believes that Trayvon hit Zimmerman, that juror might conclude that there is reasonable doubt as to the state's contention that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense. You or I, as jurors, might accept the possibility that Trayvon hit Zimmerman and still conclude that Zimmerman did not reasonably fear great bodily harm or death. But the point is that the burden of proof makes it much harder on the prosecution (which has to prove a negative) than on the defense (which doesn't have to prove anything).
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)don't want to seem to give the same benefit of doubt to Martin. I am sure the kid was afraid and was defending himself. Remember Zimmerman was alot older than Martin. Zimmerman should have known better. He as the adult and should have backed off from the beginning.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)If you've ever been followed by a stranger at night, did your best to avoid them, and then ended up face to face with them because they tracked you down, you would have a reasonable fear for your life. Especially if they didn't identify themselves.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)because he wasn't doing anything wrong. How terrible sad a family losing a beloved son because Zimmerman wanted to play bad cop.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)If you're white, you deserve all the benefit of the doubt.
If you're black, you're GUILTY until proven innocent. Since Trayvon is dead, he has no way to prove anything.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)
Azathoth
(4,610 posts)You want to sentence someone to life in prison based on your desire to give someone else "the benefit of the doubt." Our system of justice doesn't work that way.
If the roles were reversed, if Zimmerman hadn't had a gun on him and was now accusing Martin of assaulting him, the reasonable doubt standard would fall in Martin's favor, with the State having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin wasn't defending himself.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)I would feel the same way if the roles were reversed. Martin automatically made Martin out to be a crook on the prowl all because he was wearing a hoodie. I feel Zimmerman went looking to fight. I would feel the same way if Zimmerman was on his way home minding his own business and Martin had come up on him the same way I'd feel the same. Martin should of stayed back like the 911 operator asked him to. Sadly, now a young person is dead because Martin was profiled and that is the truth. That alone should put him behind bars. I am not going to argue with anyone about this. If Zimmerman would have done what the operator asked him to do in the beginning none of this conservation would be going on. No matter what is said Zimmerman was the aggressor.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)he could have used the same defense, especially given that GZ came to the party armed.
There's two different schools of thought here. One is that which seems embodied in Florida law, which is when two people fight, one has the right to win the fight by whatever means he has available. The other is what is embodied here, is that when one person in a fight dies, the other party is automatically presumed to be the aggressor.
I suppose a lot of folks won't be too surprised if it comes out as manslaughter or acquittal, especially after seeing the prosecution's weaker-than-expected case, but I still think that there will be a great outpouring of disdain for the jury if either is the result.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)They got into a fight and Martin was murdered. If they didn't have this stand your ground law it would have been a simple fight and one wins and the other doesn't. In the end they both walk away. Zimmerman is an adult who should have used better judgment. It is that simple.
Bonduel
(96 posts)If I think there is an 80% chance it was self defense and 20% chance it was murder then he will be found not guilty. The problem is the inverse still finds him not guilty. If I think there is an 80% chance he murdered Martin and 20% chance it was self defense then I still find him not guilty.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)the rest - not so much. I see, in post #8, you've got the bigotry charge ready to fire at the women of the jury, just in case you're wrong.
malaise
(269,057 posts)He's getting 10 - 20 years
hamsterjill
(15,222 posts)And there will be an appeal, I'm sure, based on the fact that manslaughter was just added.
Either way, I really feel for those jurors. They are going to be loved by some and hated by others regardless of what their verdict is. They are in a no win situation.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)easy way out for the jury plus the instruction from the judge makes it very likely.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Who knows, the jury might even give favorable consideration to Z's crappy defense argument, or maybe they won't.
BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)How he could be any kind of threat is insane.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)hooded thug in brown. And, I loved the part of the animation that showed Martin throwing a left-hook that would have knocked out Mike Tyson in his prime.
What the heck do these bozos on the defense think will make the decision -- a bunch of folks scared to death of minorities? Hope the answer to that is not Yes.
BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)as minorities, I fear the answer is a resounding yes. They are terrified of all of us. I think it is because they are afraid that we would do to them what they have done to us.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)his blood was in the bag of candy, indicating that he was still holding on to it.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)
Seriously, I hope the prosecutor will emphasize that Martin was still holding the candy and had the drink in his hoodie.
BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)Oh, this is even more tragic than I knew. Being murdered for walking while black must stop!
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)theorizes the gap between Martin's clothing and his body was due to the sag caused by the weight of the drink, i.e., it was in the hoodie pocket. They believe it indicates Martin was on top when the gun was fired.
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)I remember both the candy and the tea were removed from Martin's pockets.
Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)It's in the police report. (page 7, item 14)
I'm not sure where people keep getting the idea that the Skittles were in Martin's hand. That simply isn't true.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)you to stand your ground and shoot to kill if you feel threatened. It is an absurdly low thresh hold to meet.
Myrina
(12,296 posts).... are more likely to see Martin as a threat rather than Zimmy.
Please see my sig line before you hit reply. Thanks.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)
4 white women from a poor community would also more than likely see Trayvon Martin as more of a threat than Zimmerman.
Lisa D
(1,532 posts)who understand teenage boys and wouldn't like the idea of some strange, adult male following a teenager in the dark. Especially an adult male carrying a gun.
Look how often children are taught about "stranger danger". Martin did the right thing when he saw a stranger following him--first, he ran. Then when Zimmerman caught up to him, Martin cried out for help until Zimmerman shot him in the heart.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)So they don't listen to the media essentially cheering for Zimmerman.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)...but this is with a common law self defense definition. I have no idea how the stand-and-fight statute changes that.
Azathoth
(4,610 posts)It's not about whether Trayvon Martin was a "threat," intent upon or physically capable of killing Zimmerman. It's about whether Zimmerman had a reasonable fear -- while on the ground, being punched, swallowing blood -- that he would be killed or seriously injured.
The State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that such a fear was unreasonable. If the jury convicts while not being convinced of this, then they are simply disregarding the law.
That is what it boils down to- if they believe Zimmermans account enough to think he had reasonable fear for his life or of great bodily harm.
If they believe that, the law says that there is no conviction, and if I understand correctly that has to the the first point they deliberate. so it could possibly get no further than that.
One of my fears is that they will consider this by placing themselves in what Zimmerman claimed was his position with Trayvon on top of him, instead of considering the size and experience of Zimmerman.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)Zimmerman's injuries were not serious - look at the video of him in the police station after the murder. And why was there no Zimmerman DNA on Trayvon's hands? IN addition, Zimmerman stalked that unarmed kid and killed him because he's a bigoted asshole with a Napoleonic complex.
onenote
(42,714 posts)"In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real."
So (i) the jury is supposed to view the question of self defense through the eyes of the defendant; (ii) the danger need not have been actual, thus it doesn't matter whether the injuries cited by the defense were substantial or insubstantial; as a matter of law, Zimmerman wasn't required to show any injury at all. And because the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, all that Zimmerman needs to be acquitted based on self defense is for the jury to conclude that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not reasonably fear for his life. That's two "reasonables" and that gives jurors a lot of room. (Put another way, if a juror believes that there is any reasonable possibility that Zimmerman could have feared for his life during the fight with Trayvon, then that jury, if he or she follows the jury instructions, likely would vote to acquit.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)They are supposed to view it through the eyes of a reasonable person. It does not matter whether or not Zimmerman thought his life was in danger, it matters whether a reasonable person would have thought their life was in danger. If the jury does not find Zimmerman's actions to be reasonable then it does not matter what Zimmerman thought, if his actions were not reasonable given the situation then he needs to be convicted.
onenote
(42,714 posts)What I should have said is that jurors are supposed judge a defendant by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Was there evidence TM would have stopped?
Ironically if someone had come to his aid and he still shot TM that would have been murder.
But no aid, no sense TM was done punching / slamming Z = self defense.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)....there's somethign wrong with that...I don't believe that's the law
anomiep
(153 posts)That's likely because that *isn't* the law - the standard is a reasonable person.
If a five year old starts swinging at me, unless that five year old is *actually* the strongest kid in the world, it is not actually reasonable for me to think that a five year old hitting you is danger of great bodily harm, and it's pretty easy to argue that, beyond a reasonable doubt, getting hit by a five year old does not cause a reasonable person fear of death or great bodily harm.
Now, put an axe in that five year old's hands - maybe. I don't think it would be reasonable for an adult to shoot in that situation, though, either, because it's going to be pretty easy to just grab the axe from a five year old, but the point is it's all about the circumstances.
There are examples of shootings where the person shot was unarmed and beating up the person who shot, who were no-billed or acquitted. Some were, of course, in states that weren't Florida but had similar standards.
There was a case in Texas where someone in a Porsche had (minorly, imho) sideswiped someone. A different guy, in a different Porsche, who knew nothing about the original accident, saw that Porsche pass him and turn off the road.
The second Porsche rolled up into traffic, and the original vehicle that had been sideswiped caught up to the second Porsche. He mistakenly thought it was the Porsche that had sideswiped him. So he got out of his vehicle and started hitting the guy driving the second porsche in the head, through the window.
The second Porsche driver had a concealed handgun. He stated that he dizzy and could not stop the guy from hitting him. He could not drive away because of the traffic (and, imho, trying to move the car may well be deadly force in a situation like that anyway). He pulled a firearm and shot the attacker. The guy who was driving the second Porsche was, if I remember right, no billed by a grand jury - precisely because he could state all of those factors (getting dizzy, etc) that showed a reasonable fear of great bodily injury.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)that means Dale Earnhardt Sr isn't really dead, then.
The crash that killed him didn't look serious. I'll bet he didn't have but a scratch or two on his body.
Yet he died.
Another sports figure...Tom Brady... who may not have had the stellar career he's had if not for the fact that Drew Bledsoe got hit in the chest with what looked like the same force other players have taken.
It ruptured a blood vessel in his chest. He could have died.
Probably no scratches on him, maybe a nasty bruise...
Insignificant injuries can, and sometimes do, cause death.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)he was armed and capable of using deadly force, and he did. He had that knowledge when he approached Trayvon.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Is hung jury, and the state won't try to retry.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Our interpretations are meaningless, since we are not on the jury. I am not saying that we shouldn't entertain ourselves with speculation, I am just saying the jury may see things very differently.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)uponit7771
(90,347 posts)
displacedtexan
(15,696 posts)You rock!!!
Cleita
(75,480 posts)that he killed a young teenager for no good reason other than his Napoleonic complex.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)matt819
(10,749 posts)However, to the extent Z was acting in self defense, it was only because he initiated the fatal encounter. The extreme example is the kid who kills his parents and then asks for mercy because he's an orphan.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)I would be shocked if he's convicted of 2nd degree murder.
Marr
(20,317 posts)And you still stuck the landing.
DrewFlorida
(1,096 posts)Now that I know he can be found guilty of Manslaughter, I feel very secure that the scumbag murderer will not go free.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)can imagine themselves laying on the ground being punched by TM, then he will not be viewed as an innocent teenager. The defense has done all it can to put them in that position psychologically. I expect some really whacko stuff in the defense closing to do this. The cartoon will be shown, and it will go a long way to getting the jury members to see things from GZ's point of view.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: O'Mara didn't take this case if he thought there was a chance he could lose it in the bitter end. He's got legal assistants taking notes for the appeal, should one be necessary.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)If the jury has any doubt about the self-defense
claim, they will look much more closely at the
timelines, evidence, facts and be much more
likely to see the case clearly.
I've thought that all the prosecution needed to
do is present the facts and thus raise reasonable
doubt that he acted in self-defense.
I keep posting this, but there has been NO
explanation, that I'm aware of, of why Trayvon
attacked him unprovoked.
There is NOTHING in evidence to prove this
is so. Not even circumstantial, or witness
testimony. Nothing. He had zero reason to
attack unprovoked, and that is the entire
premise of the defense. If Trayvon did not
start the fight, Zimmerman is guilty.
If the jurors use common sense.
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)Especially now that they're into closing arguments and should be aware of the evidence in this case. I'm getting really tired of so many people believing still (and even believing when they first heard of this incident) the the people on the jury would all be racist jackasses unwilling to look at any of the evidence and vote to acquit.
I'm not seeing any way to get passed Zimmerman being a wannabe cop vigilante that saw a kid doing nothing unusual, called police about him like so many of his other bogus calls to police, followed him in his car, chased him on foot, confronted him and never once believed this kid was doing nothing out of the ordinary, that he was afraid of this stranger following him and tried to get away and believed with his strapped on courage in the form of a gun that this kid would just bow to his wishes and allow himself to be subdued instead of being terrified and fighting for his life.
I'm not seeing any way to get passed Zimmerman's multiple lies, inconsistencies and gross embellishments, his outright lying on national tv with a straight face claiming he didn't know what the SYG law was and that his insignificant injuries so obviously minor in the photos of him before and after he was cleaned up by EMS are anything close to how he says he got them. The more O'Mara went over every little ding and speck on his face and head the more obvious it became that there was nothing there that comes anywhere close to Zimmerman's claims on how he got them.
Every member of the jury is female, and there is no female alive who does not know the visceral fear of being followed at night when walking alone. Not a one of them will not be able to know and believe beyond any shadow of a doubt that Martin was scared of some older guy he didn't know following and chasing him down for no reason and was terrified of him. Most if not all of these women are mothers who would have taught their own children the dangers of strangers particularly ones that follow them and what to do when out walking alone particularly at night and fear every day that something like this might happen to their own child.
The defense can posture and obfuscate, minimize and inflate all they like, but these jurors have eyes and ears the same as our own, as well as basic common sense, and I can't believe that they will let this dangerous child killing monster who has not one speck of remorse walk away.
Mr.Bill
(24,303 posts)is how did Trayvon Martin inflict all these injuries on Zimmerman without getting a speck of Zimmerman's blood or DNA anywhere on his body?
anomiep
(153 posts)When the DNA technician testified there was at least one stain on one of Martin's shirts that tested positive for blood and matched Zimmerman as a single source. If I remember correctly, it was the shirt he was wearing underneath his hoodie (the hoodie being the shirt that it was testified was improperly packaged, allowing it to mold, potentially destroying DNA evidence).
I don't know that conclusively proves anything, though, all by itself, other than that there's a fair likelihood they were in close proximity while Zimmerman was bleeding.
Mr.Bill
(24,303 posts)But I still can't see how you punch somebody in the face multiple times, drawing blood then grab the head and smash the head on the concrete multiple times and have no DNA or blood anywhere on your hands, even under your nails.
That, I don't know either.
Raine
(30,540 posts)
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)they'll find he was depraved or acted out of spite & hatred (but they might).
But I think it's a real possibility they'll find manslaughter.