Trayvon Martin Case

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

OTM - To a certain degree, you are correct and I am in full agreement with you. You cannot resort to deadly force simply b/c you are losing a fight. You can, however, resort to deadly force w/out being guilty of manslaughter or murder if (1) you are losing a fight, (2) in fear of your life - and (3) are not responsible for starting the fight.

If you start a fight, begin to lose it but have no reasonable fear for your life, and kill someone, that's murder 1 (By the way, this is the scenario applicable to my following G84C, him starting a fight, me kicking his butt and him shooting me. So long as all I do is kick his ass in a fight and pull off when he inevitably starts screaming for help).

If you start a fight, begin to lose and have reasonable fear for your life, and use deadly force, that's murder 2 (This is the scenario applicable to my following G84C, him starting a fight, me going beyond just beating him, and him shooting me);

If both parties enter into mutual combat (e.g. - two guys in a bar say "let's take it outside"), one begins to lose but has no reasonable fear for his life and kills his opponent anyway, murder 2.

If both parties enter into mutual combat, one begins to lose, has reasonable fear for his life and kills his opponent, manslaughter.

If a party does not start the fight, begins to lose, then has reasonable fear of his life, and kills his opponent - innocent.

[Disclaimer: I am not a criminal lawyer. The various degrees and factors going into determining the "level" of a homicide are dependent on State law and are not particularly straightforward. The breakdown above is based on some research I had previously done and my understanding of certain basic principles].

Here, there is clear evidence of a fight between Martin and Zimmerman. For any charge to stick, however, the Prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either Zimmerman started the fight or there was an agreement (tacit or otherwise) between Z and TM to enter into mutual combat. Unless I missed it, there is simply no evidence of who started the fight (who moved it from a verbal confrontation to a physical one). There is lots and lots of speculation based on what people believe the parties were thinking or who the type of person they believe TM or Z to be.

I simply don't think the evidence to date does (or ever will) show how this fight started. B/c of that, I don't think, as a matter of law, the prosecution can prove its case. To me, it's that simple. For those who say, well, it's Martin's word against Z and Martin is dead. True enough. But unless you are willing to radically and fundamentally change the burden we place on the State when trying to deprive a person of their life or liberty, it's the price we pay for requiring innocent until proven guilty. Worse men than Z have been found innocent of much worse for lack of the dead witness.

However, I am sure that the prosecution is hoping for folks like you, OTM, on the jury. "There's a dead kid. I don't care about legal elements, burden of proof, or innocent until proven guilty ... You can't kill shoot a kid just b/c you got in his face and he may have over reacted. Hell, for all we know, you started the fight. You better prove to me you didn't start this and that you really were in fear of your life."

Until the EMT and Good testified, I think the prosecution has a good chance of accomplishing (what I presume to be) its goal. Before then, they had Z following and confronting Martin, confusion, a fight and a dead kid with Z ending up on top.

After the EMT and Good, the details changed a bit. Good made it clear there was a point where TM was on top and appeared to be hitting Z with Z clearly yelling for help. The EMT testified that a person in Z's condition and on his back would have blood running down his throat, be likely feeling the effects of brain or concussive injuries and would probably be in reasonable fear for his life. IMHO, These two witnesses provided enough evidence to create a prima facia showing of reasonable fear of life on Z's part -- without the need for Z's testimony -- such that the burden again shifts to the State to prove Z wasn't reasonable in that fear.

Maybe your view prevails OTM. Perhaps, despite the lack of evidence, the State's burden to show who started this fight, and the protections against self-incrimination, maybe emotion prevails and Z's failure to testify dooms him.

Personally, I hope the rule of law prevails and that innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the State through legally admissable evidence remains the standard.

Two figures tussling on the ground then one pulls out a gun, bloody murder!!!!

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Who threw the first punch? Why? Prove it.

Someone aggressively starting a verbal confrontation with you DOES NOT LET YOU START WAILING ON THEM OR EVEN TOUCH THEM. If you do, you are at fault.

Damn. The willingness to ignore legal requirements, innocent until proven guilty and the State's burden to prove their case when you're offended is mind boggling. Pitchforks and torches all around.

If you wail on someone, that is assault. You shoot and kill them, that is murder. State knows Z shot and killed Martin that is murder. Unless, Z can prove his life was in danger. Martin was not armed.

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Bullshit. It most certainly can be. You are either blinded by bias or an idiot.

Even in the days of the wild west that is murder. Everyone knows you can not shoot somebody just cause they beat you in a fist fight.

[Gary84Clark]

A medical examiner who reviewed video and photographs of George Zimmerman's injuries suffered during his fatal confrontation with Trayvon Martin called the neighborhood watch captain's wounds "insignificant" and "non-life threatening."

Dr. Valerie Rao testified that Zimmerman was struck as few as three times by Martin during the fight that night. She also asserted his head may have only been slammed on the concrete a single time. Zimmerman, who faces second-degree murder charges for the death of the unarmed teenager, said Martin repeatedly slammed his head on the concrete.

"Are the injuries on the back of the defendant's head consistent with one strike against a concrete surface?" asked prosecutor John Guy

"Yes," Rao said.

"And why do you say that?" asked Guy

"Because if you hit the head one time, it is consistent with having gotten those two injuries at that one time," she testified.

Rao's testimony could contradict Zimmerman's assertion that he was involved in a potentially life-threatening struggle with the Florida teenager.

Catch up on all the details from the George Zimmerman murder trial.

Zimmerman, 29, claims he shot Martrin, 17, in self defense on Feb. 26, 2012 as Martin repeatedly banged his head against the pavement and reached for Zimmerman's gun.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

Trayvon was 5' 11" the doctor testified today.

Thanks for correcting me. How old is 5' 11"?

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

The rapper Game is 6' 2" and photos of Game are the photos conservatives have been trying to pass off as Trayvon. Stick to facts rat.

I hadn't heard about Game being passed off as Martin. Thankfully the race baiting Lefties didn't run pictures of a young, fresh-faced Trayvon......

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

Fist fights don't give you a right to murder.That is unusual. He was not armed.

Are you saying because he (Martin) was black he SHOULD have been armed?

Still, not the point I was intending to make. He didn't appear to be a 'child' to Zimmerman, he didn't act like a scared 'child' when he challenged Zimmerman. Sorry if that wasn't obvious.

[mlmpetert]

I think gary84clark is just ****in with you redskinsjoe...... at least I hope he is. Either way thank you for all your helpful and insightful legal explanations.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Thanks for correcting me. How old is 5' 11"?



I hadn't heard about Game being passed off as Martin. Thankfully the race baiting Lefties didn't run pictures of a young, fresh-faced Trayvon......

Tupac is 5'11".

[Chico23231]

so if T woulda shot Zim in this outcome...? innocent

Or in both instances, just because Zim apparently was getting his ass handed to him by a kid by a confrontation initiated by Zim, is T guilty?

I think regardless of technical details, Zim should be punished by jailtime because this situation was started by him.

To say Zim holds some type of authority to walk around his neighborhood with a gun, harrassing children or anybody is just about as foolish a thing ive ever heard of. His actions and reasoning is idoitic to the nth degree.

It sounds like Zim finally got the ass kicking he rightfully deserved and when he couldnt handle it, he shot a child.

I dont seriously think his life was ever in danger. He's lying because thats his "out." He's a coward and a liar.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

It sounds like Zim finally got the ass kicking he rightfully deserved and when he couldnt handle it, he shot a child.

What are you basing this on? All the other times he harassed children?

You don't like Zimmerman, fine. Don't let it cloud your impartiality, otherwise you come off like some kind of bigot.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

Two figures tussling on the ground then one pulls out a gun, bloody murder!!!!

MAYBE!! It could also be manslaughter or it could be no crime at all. Depends on facts - Something you reached a conclusion on before the opening statements were made. You had the gallows for Z built and the rope waiting. Read the Ox-Bow Incident. I tip my hat to you Major Tetley.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

A medical examiner who reviewed video and photographs of George Zimmerman's injuries suffered during his fatal confrontation with Trayvon Martin called the neighborhood watch captain's wounds "insignificant" and "non-life threatening." ...

Dr. Valerie Rao testified that Zimmerman was struck as few as three times by Martin during the fight that night. She also asserted his head may have only been slammed on the concrete a single time. Zimmerman, who faces second-degree murder charges for the death of the unarmed teenager, said Martin repeatedly slammed his head on the concrete.

"Are the injuries on the back of the defendant's head consistent with one strike against a concrete surface?" asked prosecutor John Guy

"Yes," Rao said.

"And why do you say that?" asked Guy

"Because if you hit the head one time, it is consistent with having gotten those two injuries at that one time," she testified. ...

Dr. Rao is the first, and to my knowledge, the only direct evidence offered by the prosecution to contradict Z's assertion that he was reasonably in fear of his life. Rao, however, was not at the scene, did not see or examine Z at the time of the incident, and reached her conclusions about the injuries only from reviewing photos and videos after the fact.

Further, Rao's testimony conflicts with that of the EMT who examined Z at the scene. (And does not address in any way the testimony of Good that Z was on the ground with TM on top of him with Z yelling for help).

IMHO, much of Rao's testimony was simple conjecture in hindsight and was highlighted as such by the defense's cross exam. Here is what the Cross-X brought out:

- Rao admitted that Martin could have hit Zimmerman in the face more than one time.

- Rao said it is possible there could have been more than one blow to the concrete.

- Rao said the bruise to the right side of Zimmerman's head could be consistent with his head hitting concrete. She said it was a small bruise, but there was some swelling.

So, while I fully expect the prosecution to hang their hat on Rao's testimony and hope for biased, emotional mobs participants like G84C to ignore everything else presented on the issue, to me, it's the same speculative evidence that the prosecution has been presenting all along.

It's very possible that it happened as Rao said - one strike against the concrete caused the two injuries. It's also possible that it happened just as Z said it did and as the EMT opined - multiple strikes againat the concrete causing disorientation and reasonalbe fear for medical safety.

It's that whole burden of proof thing again - always a stumbling block to the pitchfork and torches crowd.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

...

It's that whole burden of proof thing again - always a stumbling block to the pitchfork and torches crowd.

so "she turned me into a newt" is not sufficient proof when you got better?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

so if T woulda shot Zim in this outcome...? innocent.

Or in both instances, just because Zim apparently was getting his ass handed to him by a kid by a confrontation initiated by Zim, is T guilty?

What do you mean "this outcome"? If the only fact you change is that T shoots Z, you still have much of the speculative issues presented. T claims he was in fear of his life but testimony places him on top of Z in "ground and pound" mode with Z yelling for help. Next thing we know, Z is dead. (assume also the other witnesses come out and say they see TM get off the ground with a prone Z next to him).

I think the case against TM would be stronger especially since his body showed no evidence of injury. But, essentially, and assuming TM asserts self-defense, you would have much the same issues - speculation as to who started the fight and what happened during it. Certainly, the underlying principles - burden of proof, legal elements of the crime charged and innocent until proven guilty would be applicable to TM just as they now apply to Z.

And to be clear - "a confrontation initiated by Z" is a generalization that encompasses both legal and illegal acts in this situation. Z can initiate a verbal confrontation. TM can initiate a verbal confrontation. NEITHER can initiate a physical confrontation.

People can yell at you and aggressively taunt you in public. They can call you dirty names. They can call you the N word. They can call you a crazy cracker. They can insult your parents, sister and kids. They can make general threats of harm so long as they do so from a position where they can't reasonably be expected to carry out the threat (Shouting "I'm gonna kick your ass" from 10 feet away). They can stay at more than arms length and "flinch" as if to strike you. ...

You know what you (be you a teen, child or adult) can do in these situations? Yell back, call the cops or simply ignore it. [If they make a threat and then move to carry it out - that's different e.g. saying they are going to kick your ass and then charging you. While you would still have a duty to retreat (in MD) - you only need do so if you believe you can reasonably get to a safe place]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

I think regardless of technical details, Zim should be punished by jailtime because this situation was started by him.

Those "technical details" are, again, what I like to refer to as "law" and "burden of proof".

Z, through his actions, initiated the "situation" of a verbal confrontation - there is no evidence as to who started the "situation" of a physical confrontation. Leading up to the physical confontation, Z - IMHO - clearly exercised bad judgment. Bad judgment, however, is not a crime. Initiating a physical attack is - and that "situation" may have been "started" by Z or TM.

Before sending Z to jail, the State bears the burden of proof and persuasion to show BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that Z committed all the elements of the crime for which he is accused.

Originally Posted by Chico23231

To say Zim holds some type of authority to walk around his neighborhood with a gun, harrassing children or anybody is just about as foolish a thing ive ever heard of. His actions and reasoning is idoitic to the nth degree.

Who has alleged he has authority to harass anyone?? True, much as you don't like it, Z was legally authorized to carry a concealed weapon in public spaces. Assuming Z was harassing folks, however, if that harrasment was limited to following people and verbally confronting them, the appropriate response is to CALL THE F'ING POLICE. YOU DO NOT get to take matters into your own hands.

DAMN - why is this such a hard concept for folks to comprehend. Had TM said to his friend, "I'll call you back, I gotta call the police some crazy cracker is followng me." Maybe, just maybe, it would have been straightened out quickly. Instead, we get macho wannabe crime stopper versus macho wannabe teen and a tragic outcome with nothing but speculation on the key elements of legal responsibilty.

I gotta say, the willingness and ease with which some of you think violence is a proper response to being challenged, "harrased" or otherwise inconvenienced is disconcerting. Why does violence exist? B/c people still fundamentally believe it is the right way to resolve personal problems.

Originally Posted by Chico23231

It sounds like Zim finally got the ass kicking he rightfully deserved and when he couldnt handle it, he shot a child.

I dont seriously think his life was ever in danger. He's lying because thats his "out." He's a coward and a liar.

Well, screw the trial then - the line for pitchforks and torches starts behind G84C.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

I think gary84clark is just ****in with you redskinsjoe...... at least I hope he is. Either way thank you for all your helpful and insightful legal explanations.

I don't think he is. I think he believes a real man "whoops yo' ass" if you bother him and f***' em if they start to lose - they shouldn't been bothering his ass.

Your welcome. I find the work by the lawyers in this matter fascinating.

I am also fascinated - and discouraged - by the ease with which some here are willing to ignore the requirements of the law to accomplish what they believe should be the "right" outcome and their failure to see this logic as anything more than an old style mob lynching.

Equally disconcerting to me is the belief of some here that, even if TM initiated the physical confrontation b/c Z followed (or stalked if you would like the more emotionally charged word) and aggressively verbally confronted him, TM would somehow be justified in attacking Z.

The rule of law is not dead in this country, but I firmly believe it is on life support.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

so "she turned me into a newt" is not sufficient proof when you got better?

Let's just throw Z in the water - if he floats, he's guilty. If he drowns, he's innocent.