Trayvon Martin Case

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

I think it is reasonable to say Trayvon feared for his life when Z approached him.

What testimony are you basing that statement on?

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

For all those carrying pitchforks and torches, would your emotions be so inflamed if TM had killed Z under the exact same circumstances for which you say Z stands accused? i.e. - After following and verbally confronting an unarmed homeowner who TM subjectively thought was acting suspiciously, TM shoots and kills the homeowner because the teen was beginning to lose a fight that no one knows who started.

TM would be guilty.

i see zimmerman getting man 1 or 2.

Z contributed to there being a confrontation. Z may have been in fear of his life subjectively but just getting punched a few times doesnt rise to the level of an objective "kill or be killed" situation.

also you mentioned that it was unfavorable for the prosecutor to allow the professor witness say that a person needs to be subjectively in fear of death. to my understanding, while not helpful to the prosecutor, it is the correct recitation of law re lethal force self defense. although i wouldnt have allowed it. i would have told the judge that it would be improper to allow this character witness to testify as to the law of Florida as the judge will properly do as in her closing jury instructions as well as argue he was unqualified in voir dire .. although that would be odd to try and disqualify your own witness ..

a person fear needs to be reasonable (objective = reas person in his position would think they are going to die) and subjective (the person actually thought they were going to die)

ill try to come up with a hypo to illustrate (im sure it will be flawed)

1) A points gun at B and says "i'm going to kill you". B thinks he is going to die. B pulls out his own gun and shoots A.

- any reas/objective person would be in fear of their life. B was in actual/subjective fear for his life. = justified lethal self defense

2) A points gun at B. B knows the gun is not loaded and doesnt possess a threat. B pulls out his own gun and shoots A.

- any reas person would be in fear of having a gun pointed at them. However, B did not have any actual fear bc he knew the gun was not loaded.

now this hypo is flawed a bit b/c i think technically the test for passing the reas person standard wouldnt be "would a reas person fear for their life
when a gun is pointed at them" but "would a reas person fear for their life when an unloaded gun is pointed at them".... but i tried. coming up w perfect hypos are hard.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

I think it is reasonable to say Trayvon feared for his life when Z approached him. That would justify him beating Z up, if that happened? They have a video where the police are with Z in his interview, its on abcnews.com. They tell Z if you had identified yourself to this child then we would not be here.

Wow. Just wow. You're either a hypocrite or a f***'ing barbarian.

First, show me the law that says Z had to identify himself. Regarldless of whether he "should have", show me the law requiring him to do so. Hindsight is 20/20.

TM justifiably feared for his life? Really?? Show me where ANYWHERE in the conversation with Jeanette that TM evidenced a fear of his life or even imminent physical harm.

BUT ... accepting your premise arguendo -- following and verbally confronting TM legitimately put TM in fear for his life but TM having Z pinned to the ground and inflicting the injuries evidenced by TM did not put Z in reasonable fear of his own.

Don't look now, you're double standard is showing.

[over the mountain]

to anyone arguing that zimmerman should be found completely innocent - watch his reenactment video.

joe has been hammering a point and it is a good one = the jury will have to base their verdict on the admissible evidence before them. so far most legal pundits think the defense is winning. i think man 1 or 2 is in play.

a reckless disregard for life but not enough to say it was willful or intentional.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

First, show me the law that says Z had to identify himself. Regarldless of whether he "should have", show me the law requiring him to do so. Hindsight is 20/20.

TM justifiably feared for his life? Really?? Show me where ANYWHERE in the conversation with Jeanette that TM evidenced a fear of his life or even imminent physical harm.

.

i think only a detective or consultant said he should have identified himself and this wouldnt have happened. im guessing that is where this notion came from.

TM would not have to be in fear of death to justify using non-lethal self defense. He would only have to be in fear of bodily harm. having an adult follow you and corner you would put a person in reas fear that the person following you wanted to fight.

to justify lethal self-defense on an unarmed combatant is just not acceptable to me in this situation. maybe if its chuck norris on an 80 yr old, but not a 29 yr old and a person who just turned 17.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

i think only a detective or consultant said he should have identified himself and this wouldnt have happened. im guessing that is where this notion came from.

TM would not have to be in fear of death to justify using non-lethal self defense. He would only have to be in fear of bodily harm. having an adult follow you and corner you would put a person in reas fear that the person following you wanted to fight.

to justify lethal self-defense on an unarmed combatant is just not acceptable to me in this situation. maybe if its chuck norris on an 80 yr old, but not a 29 yr old and a person who just turned 17.

If you're getting your ass beat and fear for your life...forget how you got there because it is irrelevant to your decision making at that point...then shooting someone who is unarmed is definitely in play. I know I would. A gun is reasonably equal force to "Oh no this guy is going to kill me with his bare hands". The real question as to this part of the trial is whether Z had real and reasonable cause to fear for his life. JR where does the burden stand on this type of issue. Does Z have to prove he was reasonably in fear or does the prosecution have to prove he wasn't?

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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]



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.



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.



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

Joe first I appreciate you explaining everything with your expertise. seriously I do and glad your here to navigate this situation.

Second, Im not advocating violence to solve a thing. not a thing. But you know a macho guy walking around seeking out a confronation while armed is not a good thing. Throw an immature kid into the mix, its down right dangerous. Im more appauled some people think its a good idea for Zim to behaving like this.

Lastly, you know, as well as I, people lie all day in court. Ive personally seen a police officer lie under oath. witnessed it. Ive seen guilty people lie all day in court to save their butts. If Zim could take it back, im sure he would. He's using "my life in danger" as a defense only now because he's life is truely in danger from incarseration. The reason to pull that weapon was petty. And he killed a normal teenager. not a thug, a kid who he got in a skirmish with. He should have never drawn that weapon. Its appauling to me people handle a fist fight with a weapon.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

What testimony are you basing that statement on?

Jeantel testified that as he neared the home of his father's girlfriend, Martin tried to lose Zimmerman.

"And then he said, 'That N-word is still following me now,'" said Jeantel. "I asked him how the man looked like. He just told me the man looked 'creepy.' 'Creepy, white' -- excuse my language -- 'cracker. Creepy [expletive] cracker."
Jeantel says she heard Martin talking to Zimmerman in the background of the call.
"He said, 'Why are you following me for?' And I heard a hard-breathing man say, 'What you doing around here?'" said Jeantel.
Jeantel also said she heard a bump from Martin's headset hitting something and "wet grass sounds."
"I start hearing a little bit of Trayvon saying, 'Get off, get off!'" said Jeantel.

Key witness recounts Trayvon Martin's final phone call - CNN.com



I dont know if that supports martin being afraid for his life but certainly being afraid. a guy is following you, creepy is how i would feel as well as scared.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

TM would be guilty.

i see zimmerman getting man 1 or 2.

Z contributed to there being a confrontation. Z may have been in fear of his life subjectively but just getting punched a few times doesnt rise to the level of an objective "kill or be killed" situation.

Z contributed to the verbal confrontation - sure. His contribution to the physical confrontation is simply unknown.

Also, you draw the factual conclusion that Z "was punched a few times" and the direct of Dr. Rao provides objective support for that factual conclusion. At the same time, I think the course of the fight is somewhat speculative beyond Z's injuries and Good's testimony. Again, the EMT's testimony about Z on the spot was that the injuries he received would probably put someone in reasonable fear of his life.

Originally Posted by over the mountain

also you mentioned that it was unfavorable for the prosecutor to allow the professor witness say that a person needs to be subjective fear of death. to my understanding, while not helpful to the prosecutor, it is the correct recitation of law re lethal force self defense.

a person fear needs to be reasonable (objective = reas person in his position would think they are going to die) and subjective (the person actually thought they were going to die)

ill try to come up with a hypo to illustrate (im sure it will be flawed)

1) A points gun at B and says "i'm going to kill you". B thinks he is going to die. B pulls out his own gun and shoots A.

- any reas/objective person would be in fear of their life. B was in actual/subjective fear for his life. = justified lethal self defense

2) A points gun at B. B knows the gun is not loaded and doesnt possess a threat. B pulls out his own gun and shoots A.

- any reas person would be in fear of having a gun pointed at them. However, B did not have any actual fear bc he knew the gun was not loaded.

now this hypo is flawed a bit b/c i think technically the test for passing the reas person standard wouldnt be "would a reas person fear for their life
when a gun is pointed at them" but "would a reas person fear for their life when an unloaded gun is pointed at them".... but i tried. coming up w perfect hypos are hard.

My point with the Prof. was that, while he may have correctly stated the law, why let a witness, friendly to the accused, do this (it's akin to letting OJ try on the gloves) instead of simply bringing it out in final argument. That way, instead having it manipulated against you, you get to couch it in a way consistent with your case. This was just not a witness I would have put on.

I get your analogy and don't think it is all that flawed. A modification that might make it more applicable would be, in the second case: B can't tell if gun is loaded, in the moment thinks it might be and shoots A. After the fact, a reasonable person who reviews the incident - w/out the gun being pointed at them - believe it obvious that the gun was unloaded. In that case, I believe, but am not positive, that the subjective belief is sufficient defense because the objective person has to place themselves in the shoes of person B and attempt to review it from the reasonableness from that position -- not as neutral observer. It seems to me, if person A engages in actions that create a subjective doubt as to fear of life, person A cannot then benefit from objective hindsight to say the B was unreasonable.

Here, through his statements to police, interviews on TV and in statements to friends, Z has consistently (with tangential inconsistencies) asserted his subjective belief that he was in fear for his life during the fight - a subjective belief that, in concert with his injuries, is supported by the EMT's and Good's testimony. On the other hand, in hind sight, and with no knowledge of the exact specifics, neutral observers (Chico and G84C) see a simple fist-fight with one guy clearly losing but in a manner which doesn't appear to them to be life threatening. To me, finding someone guilty of a crime based on hindsight and speculation is patently unfair. Barring clear evidence that Z's subjective belief was patently unreasonable, I don't think the State has met its burden.

In light of Z's injuries, Good's testimony, and the testimony of the on-site EMT, I think the State simply has got to come up with more than Dr. Rao's speculative hindsight to prove Z's belief was unreasonable.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Joe first I appreciate you explaining everything with your expertise. seriously I do and glad your here to navigate this situation.

Second, Im not advocating violence to solve a thing. not a thing. But you know a macho guy walking around seeking out a confronation while armed is not a good thing. Throw an immature kid into the mix, its down right dangerous. Im more appauled some people think its a good idea for Zim to behaving like this.

Lastly, you know, as well as I, people lie all day in court. Ive personally seen a police officer lie under oath. witnessed it. Ive seen guilty people lie all day in court to save their butts. If Zim could take it back, im sure he would. He's using "my life in danger" as a defense only now because he's life is truely in danger from incarseration. The reason to pull that weapon was petty. And he killed a normal teenager. not a thug, a kid who he got in a skirmish with. He should have never drawn that weapon. Its appauling to me people handle a fist fight with a weapon.

How do you know he was seeking out a confrontation. His prior calls to the police the hold them he did not want to get involved personally.

In one of the calls, made on February 2, 2012, about three weeks before Martin's death, Zimmerman told the dispatcher he saw a black man walking around a neighbor's home. He said he also had seen this man walking around the neighborhood on trash days.
"I don't know what he's doing, I don't want to approach him, personally," said Zimmerman on the recording.

In another call made in October 2011, Zimmerman reported two "suspicious characters" who were "just hanging out, loitering" in his neighborhood. When the dispatcher asked if he can still see the suspects, Zimmerman said no because he "didn't want to attract attention" to himself.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

JR where does the burden stand on this type of issue. Does Z have to prove he was reasonably in fear or does the prosecution have to prove he wasn't?

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

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

A More Detailed Statement:
The burden of initially producing "some evidence" on the issue of mitigation or self-defense (or of relying upon evidence produced by the State) sufficient to give rise to a jury issue with respect to these defenses, is properly cast upon the defendant. Once the issue has been generated by the evidence, however, the State must carry the ultimate burden of persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt on that issue. ... [T]he Court recognized that many states do require the defendant to make a threshold showing that there is "some evidence" indicating that the defendant acted in the heat of passion before the prosecution is required to negate this element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, the prosecution need not in the first instance introduce evidence of facts which negate the existence of mitigating circumstances or of self-defense; and if the defendant adduces no evidence of these matters, no issue of their existence is raised in the case and no jury instructions regarding mitigating circumstances or self-defense need be given. [emphasis mine]

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

[Gary84Clark]

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;1014343]Z contributed to the verbal confrontation - sure. His contribution to the physical confrontation is simply unknown.

He fired the shot that killed Martin, and that my friend is Z's contribution to the physical confrontation. He shot an unarmed person, after confronting them. Martin had a right to be where he was, he was visiting a resident. Joe acts as if Trayvon was a scary unusual person. He saw someone walking through a condo complex. so what? They get into a wrestling match, so what? He shot the guy, highly unusual event.

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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

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

A More Detailed Statement:
The burden of initially producing "some evidence" on the issue of mitigation or self-defense (or of relying upon evidence produced by the State) sufficient to give rise to a jury issue with respect to these defenses, is properly cast upon the defendant. Once the issue has been generated by the evidence, however, the State must carry the ultimate burden of persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt on that issue. ... [T]he Court recognized that many states do require the defendant to make a threshold showing that there is "some evidence" indicating that the defendant acted in the heat of passion before the prosecution is required to negate this element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, the prosecution need not in the first instance introduce evidence of facts which negate the existence of mitigating circumstances or of self-defense; and if the defendant adduces no evidence of these matters, no issue of their existence is raised in the case and no jury instructions regarding mitigating circumstances or self-defense need be given. [emphasis mine]

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

Let's imagine a video camera, it records Joe Redskin and Redskins Rat going into a hotel room. Joe comes out but Rat never reemerges on the video feed. Rat's body is found later in the room. Joe says it self defense. No one can prove it was not self defense. Joe goes free?

[mlmpetert]

Joe, do you mind commenting on The Stand Your Ground defense and the likelihood of Zimmerman requesting it once closing statements are made?

Its seems that the defense only waived their right to a Stand Your Ground pretrial because they didn't want to show the prosecution (or the media) what their defense was. Perhaps they were also concerned of losing the pretrial and having that ruling potentially influence would be jurors.

The following article notes:

The "Stand Your Ground" law allows the use of deadly force as long as the defendant can prove the following factors:

• Are not engaged in an unlawful activity.
• Are being attacked in a place you have a right to be.
• Reasonably believe that your life and safety is in danger as a result of an overt act or perceived threat committed by someone else toward you.

No 'Stand Your Ground' for Zimmerman... yet | HLNtv.com

In your unbiased legal opinion and with regards only the specific and exact facts know to us thus far, do you think Zimmerman has a reasonable chance to prove all of the above factors? Would it be right to assume that his legal team will likely try to prove these factors in conjunction with their defense?

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Wow. Just wow. You're either a hypocrite or a f***'ing barbarian.

First, show me the law that says Z had to identify himself. Regarldless of whether he "should have", show me the law requiring him to do so. Hindsight is 20/20.

TM justifiably feared for his life? Really?? Show me where ANYWHERE in the conversation with Jeanette that TM evidenced a fear of his life or even imminent physical harm.

BUT ... accepting your premise arguendo -- following and verbally confronting TM legitimately put TM in fear for his life but TM having Z pinned to the ground and inflicting the injuries evidenced by TM did not put Z in reasonable fear of his own.

Don't look now, you're double standard is showing.

Calling me a barbarian is not gonna prove your point. I am making the same argument you are making. If it is resonablee to shoot someone because you feared for your life, then it is resaonable to punch someon if you fear for your life. A strange man approaching you with a gun is life threatening. See, Joe I think you may have a double standard going here. What applies to Martin equally applies to Z.