Trayvon Martin Case

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

There is no evidence that Zimmerman started anything. Following a person is not against the law. That's the problem with their case. If there was evidence that Zim. started an altercation then he should be convicted.

If he can't show that he didn't start it then it's at the very least manslaughter. You can't simply claim self-defense and walk away and contrary to what JoeRedskins has to say on the matter you have to show it was in fact self-defense and poke holes in the prosecutors claims.

[FRPLG]

You're aeguing wirh an actual practicing lawyer about how the law works.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

You're aeguing wirh an actual practicing lawyer about how the law works.

Correct. I don't have to be a lawyer or stay at a Holiday Inn to comprehend the law.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

Let me get this...you are saying I can follow RedskinRat into an elevator...shoot him dead after intiating an altercation then claim self-defense...and that the state has to prove that it was not self defense? And if it doesnt I get to walk?

I am calling Bullshit! Self-defense is an affirmative defense. This means the defendant's statements must be sufficient to warrant relief from the court.

Zimmerman must prove, show or whatever the **** you want to call it that he acted in self-defense.

p.s. It's not too hard to get a conviction based on circumstantial evidence and I believe there is sufficent evidence in the Zimmerman case...see:

Renton teen gets almost 70 years for fatal shooting | Local News | The Seattle Times

You can call bullshit all you want - you would be wrong. You call bullshit on lots of things where reality conflicts with with the world according saden1. Nothing new there.

Whether admitted in the indictment, introduced by the prosecution during the trial or placed into controversy by the defendant, once raised, it is the State's burden to prove your guilt. Your analogy is miles away from GZ's claim and, in these matters, the devil is in the details. You may claim it. but without something more, (injuries, evidence of a fight, someone hearing you screaming for help), it will be pretty easy to overcome a simple "uhh, he tried to kill me - yeah, that's the ticket!" defense.

Again - here are Florida's pattern jury instructions:

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent, one, imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or, two, the imminent commission of aggravated battery against himself or another.

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 guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe the defendant is innocent. The presumption stays with the defendant, as to each material allegation in the information, through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt. To overcome the defendant's presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of proving the crime with which the defendant is charged was committed and the defendant is the person who committed the crime. The defendant is not required to present evidence or prove anything.

Unlike your simplistic, devoid of facts example, in this case, by their own admission, and as demonstrated through their own evidence, the State has placed Zimm's self-defense claim at issue and now bears the burden of proof and persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt.

So I ask you again: Through the admitted evidence, and without speculation or argumentative characterizations, demonstrate that the State has eliminated all reasonable doubt such that the claim is invalidated as to any one of the five elements necesary for a valid claim of self-defense.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

If he can't show that he didn't start it then it's at the very least manslaughter. You can't simply claim self-defense and walk away and contrary to what JoeRedskins has to say on the matter you have to show it was in fact self-defense and poke holes in the prosecutors claims.

Damn. For a smart guy, you can truly be pig-headedly dumb. Show me applicable Florida law supporting your assertion. Florida law is clearly stated in the pattern jury instructions given on this issue. At the conclusion of this case, the judge is going to tell these jurors: "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."

To be clear, captain deflection, GZ is not simply "claim[ing] self-defense and walk[ing] away." Again (for the third time), through admissible evidence, without speculation and without argumentative characterizations, demonstrate how the State:

(1) has eliminated all reasonable doubt that GZ was "justified in using deadly force [because] he reasonably believe[d] that such force [was] necessary to prevent, one, imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or, two, the imminent commission of aggravated battery against himself or another."; and

(2) has eliminated "all reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force".

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

p.s. It's not too hard to get a conviction based on circumstantial evidence and I believe there is sufficent evidence in the Zimmerman case...see:

Renton teen gets almost 70 years for fatal shooting | Local News | The Seattle Times

This case is what we lawyers who do more than stay at a Holiday Inn call "easily distinguishable". Prosecutor's has forensic cell phone evidence placing the suspect at the scene, an admission of murder in the commission of a crime that was judged credible and his girlfriend ID'ing him from the tapes.

The case against Keodara was built primarily on the testimony of a friend who had served time with him in a juvenile facility, according to court documents.

The friend told Wenatchee police he’d gotten a frantic call from Keodara on the night of the shooting, saying he’d shot a man over a drug deal and needed to get out of town, prosecutors say.

In addition, video surveillance from a nearby gas station and drugstore show a car similar to the one described by witnesses stopping at the shelter around 2:31 a.m., prosecutors say.

Keodara’s ex-girlfriend identified him from surveillance footage, and cellphone records placed him in the area at the time of the shootings, according to Carlstrom.

But Brandes said during the trial that the two cellphones taken into evidence by police weren’t registered to Keodara and that the surveillance footage wasn’t clear enough to identify Keodara.

The gun used in the shootings was never found, and the two other Asian males who were at the scene were never identified, she said.

Find me, in the GZ/TM evidence, a confession from GZ that he wasn't in fear of his life, survelliance video showing the fight with a witness (preferably GZ's wife for consistency with your idiotic analogy) identifying GZ as the person initiating the fight, and some independent techological forensic evidence demonstrating that, at the time he shot TM, GZ could not reasonably have been in fear for his life. Then we can talk.

Until then, stay out of Holiday Inns.

[over the mountain]

When self-defense is asserted, the defendant has the burden of producing
enough evidence to establish a prima facie case demonstrating the justifiable use of
force. Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424, 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Fields v. State, 988
So. 2d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); see Murray v. State, 937 So. 2d 277, 282 (Fla.
4th DCA 2006) (holding that law does not require defendant to prove self-defense to
any standard measuring assurance of truth, exigency, near certainty, or even mere
probability; defendant’s only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could
have been reasonable). Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing of selfdefense, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant did not act in self-defense. Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188. The burden of proving
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including the burden of proving that the defendant did
not act in self-defense, never shifts from the State to the defendant. Montijo, 61 So. 3d
at 427; Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188; see Monsansky v. State, 33 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2010) (explaining that defendant has burden to present sufficient evidence that he
acted in self-defense in order to be entitled to jury instruction on issue, but presentation

^^ after 2 seconds on google i found a 2012 florida appellate opinion (appears to be unreported) ... falwell v state, 5D10-2011

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by firstdown

There is no evidence that Zimmerman started anything. Following a person is not against the law. That's the problem with their case. If there was evidence that Zim. started an altercation then he should be convicted.

That's a lot of people's perception of the case and why they've got it wrong. Zimmerman wasn't hunting down an innocent little kid, who may or may not resembled the current President's son....

[JoeRedskin]

Zimmerman will not testify. Defense has rested. Case goes to the jury Thursday.

Court denies Defense motion for acquital, Judge says "there's substantial evidence, both direct and circumstantial, that allows this case to go to the jury." [FWIW, I agree].

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

1) Find me, in the GZ/TM evidence, a confession from GZ that he wasn't in fear of his life,
2)survelliance video showing the fight with a witness (preferably GZ's wife for consistency with your idiotic analogy) identifying GZ as the person initiating the fight,
3)and some independent techological forensic evidence demonstrating that, at the time he shot TM, GZ could not reasonably have been in fear for his life. Then we can talk.

Until then, stay out of Holiday Inns.

i really think it comes down to who the jury will believe and how much weight they will give to each piece of evidence

1) not going to happen obviously. we do have evidence and testimony that martin was "creeped out"by a guy following him ..

2) compare the actual dispatch call by zimmerman vs zimmerman's reenactment. inconsistencies ...

zimmerman was told to not follow martin. what does he do? he then drives in his truck the direction martin went. when he comes to a foot path and cant follow martin anymore in his truck he gets out of his truck. zimmerman said he didnt get out of his truck to follow martin on foot but got of his truck ..... get this .... to look for a street sign bc he didnt know where he was in his own gated community ... which he apparently patrols all the time. . .

his excuse for why he wasnt following martin but had to get out of his truck is unreasonable and unbelievable to me . .

3) i dont place much weight on what the paid for defense expert said .. he is some retired paid for whore just like 99% of all defense experts. his opinions favors who pays him . . . there has been testimony from a neutral EMT (not paid by either party) that zimmerman;s injuries were consistent with 1 blow ot back of the head .. yes i know on cross the EMT said it could have been more . . also witness Good said he didnt know if punches were thrown or if any landed and that the person on bottom could have been able to punch back ...


the jury is going to decide this one. what ever they do will be the right verdict.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

You can call bullshit all you want - you would be wrong. You call bullshit on lots of things where reality conflicts with with the world according saden1. Nothing new there.

Whether admitted in the indictment, introduced by the prosecution during the trial or placed into controversy by the defendant, once raised, it is the State's burden to prove your guilt. Your analogy is miles away from GZ's claim and, in these matters, the devil is in the details. You may claim it. but without something more, (injuries, evidence of a fight, someone hearing you screaming for help), it will be pretty easy to overcome a simple "uhh, he tried to kill me - yeah, that's the ticket!" defense.

Again - here are Florida's pattern jury instructions:



Unlike your simplistic, devoid of facts example, in this case, by their own admission, and as demonstrated through their own evidence, the State has placed Zimm's self-defense claim at issue and no bears the burden of proof and persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt.

So I ask you again: Through the admitted evidence, and without speculation or argumentative characterizations, demonstrate that the State has eliminated all reasonable doubt such that the claim is invalidated as to any one of the five elements necesary for a valid claim of self-defense.

You're complexifying the case and completely ignoring the affirmative defense aspect of the case. WTF do you mean by speculation? Regardless of which side you approach the case from there is an element of inference involved. I mean, the entire case is built on circumstantial evidence because only two people really know what happened.

Since your are so keen on the fact of the case, here are the fact of the case:

1. Zimmerman profiled Martin (has a history of doing so).
2. Zimmerman perused Martin (he didn't want him to get away with "it").
3. Zimmerman called the Police and was advised not to continue perusing Martin.
4. Zimmerman's 911 call has a 2 min gap (why?)
5. Zimmerman didn't identify himself to Martin as a Neighborhood Watchman.
6. Zimmerman got out of his car to look at street signs in a Neighborhood with 3 streets (how odd).
7. Zimmerman has MMA training ("soft" or not Martin didn't have such training).
8. Zimmerman weighs 40lb more than Martin.
9. Zimmerman has made conflicting statements about what angle Martin approached and attacked him from.
10. Zimmerman was more worried about going to work and class the next day after killing someone (that's not normal).
11. Zimmerman exaggerated his injuries.
12. Zimmerman lied that he didn't know about Stand Your Ground law on national TV.
13. Zimmerman claimed that the voice recording doesn't sound like him.
14. There is conflicting witness statements about who initiated the confrontation and who was on top (doesn't help the defense and it certainly doesn't negate the other facts the case).
15. There is conflicting witness statements who was screaming (Zimmerman himself said it doesn't sound like me only to change his tune later).

If I am on the jury that's enough circumstantial evidence to convict Martin of at least manslaughter because I don't believe his actions to be reasonable. You can laugh and yell all you fcking want Joe but there is enough to convict him and I certainly would find him guilty as charged. I will go back to the prosecutor's statements and I will collect on my bets...Believe that!

p.s. Can you tell us what Affirmative Defense is all about?

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

That's a lot of people's perception of the case and why they've got it wrong. Zimmerman wasn't hunting down an innocent little kid, who may or may not resembled the current President's son....

dude, listen to the dispatch tape then watch zimmerman's reenactment. after that, tell me if you dont believe zimmerman got out of his truck to follow martin . .

i dont think his reenactment came in as evidence so the jury will not have the benefit of it but in the court of public opinion ...

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

i really think it comes down to who the jury will believe and how much weight they will give to each piece of evidence

It'll come down to the concealed bigotry of the jury and the sales pitch by the attorneys.

Originally Posted by over the mountain

1) not going to happen obviously. we do have evidence and testimony that martin was "creeped out"by a guy following him ..

Creeped out, not scared. Remember that, it's key to why he's dead.

Originally Posted by over the mountain

2) compare the actual dispatch call by zimmerman vs zimmerman's reenactment. inconsistencies ...

Yes, because everyone has 100% perfect recall of stressful events. From the trial: Surdyka said she heard cries for help and then multiple gunshots: "Pop, pop, pop. ... <Riiiiiight!>

Originally Posted by over the mountain

zimmerman was told to not follow martin. what does he do?

Due to the frustrations of past experience and quite lawfully, he follows Martin. It's a ****ing dispatcher, not a cop.

Originally Posted by over the mountain

he then drives in his truck the direction martin went. when he comes to a foot path and cant follow martin anymore in his truck he gets out of his truck. zimmerman said he didnt get out of his truck to follow martin on foot but got of his truck ..... get this .... to look for a street sign bc he didnt know where he was in his own gated community ... which he apparently patrols all the time. . .

So he shouldn't confirm where he's at? Odd attitude.

Originally Posted by over the mountain

his excuse for why he wasnt following martin but had to get out of his truck is unreasonable and unbelievable to me . .

Your bias showing, nothing more.

Originally Posted by over the mountain

3) i dont place much weight on what the paid for defense expert said .. he is some retired paid for whore just like 99% of all defense experts. his opinions favors who pays him . . .

Thankfully we were spared any biased testimony from the Prosecution. /sarc

Originally Posted by over the mountain

there has been testimony from a neutral EMT (not paid by either party) that zimmerman;s injuries were consistent with 1 blow ot back of the head .. yes i know on cross the EMT said it could have been more . . also witness Good said he didnt know if punches were thrown or if any landed and that the person on bottom could have been able to punch back ...

<facepalm>

Originally Posted by over the mountain

the jury is going to decide this one. what ever they do will be the right verdict.

How does that hold up to logic? Did you watch the OJ trial? Jurors get shit wrong all the time.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

When self-defense is asserted, the defendant has the burden of producing
enough evidence to establish a prima facie case demonstrating the justifiable use of
force. Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424, 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Fields v. State, 988
So. 2d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); see Murray v. State, 937 So. 2d 277, 282 (Fla.
4th DCA 2006) (holding that law does not require defendant to prove self-defense to
any standard measuring assurance of truth, exigency, near certainty, or even mere
probability; defendant’s only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could
have been reasonable). Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing of selfdefense, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant did not act in self-defense. Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188. The burden of proving
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including the burden of proving that the defendant did
not act in self-defense, never shifts from the State to the defendant. Montijo, 61 So. 3d
at 427; Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188; see Monsansky v. State, 33 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2010) (explaining that defendant has burden to present sufficient evidence that he
acted in self-defense in order to be entitled to jury instruction on issue, but presentation

^^ after 2 seconds on google i found a 2012 florida appellate opinion (appears to be unreported) ... falwell v state, 5D10-2011

Yes, of course, the issue must be fairly raised for the instruction to be given - that is significantly different standard, however, than anything saden1 has alluded to. It simply enough evidence to raise a factual question on the issue such that it would survive a motion to dismiss. Further, the evidence can be brought out either by the defense or through the prosecution's evidence. Bottom line, once it gets to the jury and the instruction is given, "the burden of proving that the defendant did not act in self-defense, never shifts from the State to the defendant." i.e. State must eliminate all reasonable doubt as to one or more of the five elements.

In this case, by its indictment of murder2, the prosecution has made GZ's allegedly imperfect self defense claim an element of their charge. As I have said consistently, in this case, it is the State's burden of proof and persuasion to disprove one of the elements of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. I will concede that this will not be true IF AND ONLY IF the Prosecution can successfully argue that the quoted instructions should not be given b/c the evidence presented did not fairly generate a prima facie claim of self-defense.

Regardless of the subtleties on the issue -- Is anyone actually asserting that the evidence presented in this matter doesn't present a factual question as to whether GZ acted in self defense and that the jury instructions on self defense should not be given?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

You're complexifying the case and completely ignoring the affirmative defense aspect of the case. WTF do you mean by speculation? Regardless of which side you approach the case from there is an element of inference involved. I mean, the entire case is built on circumstantial evidence because only two people really know what happened.

Since your are so keen on the fact of the case, here are the fact of the case:

1. Zimmerman profiled Martin (has a history of doing so).
2. Zimmerman perused Martin (he didn't want him to get away with "it").
3. Zimmerman called the Police and was advised not to continue perusing Martin.
4. Zimmerman's 911 call has a 2 min gap (why?)
5. Zimmerman didn't identify himself to Martin as a Neighborhood Watchman.
6. Zimmerman got out of his car to look at street signs in a Neighborhood with 3 streets (how odd).
7. Zimmerman has MMA training ("soft" or not Martin didn't have such training).
8. Zimmerman weighs 40lb more than Martin.
9. Zimmerman has made conflicting statements about what angle Martin approached and attacked him from.
10. Zimmerman was more worried about going to work and class the next day after killing someone (that's not normal).
11. Zimmerman exaggerated his injuries.
12. Zimmerman lied that he didn't know about Stand Your Ground law on national TV.
13. Zimmerman claimed that the voice recording doesn't sound like him.
14. There is conflicting witness statements about who initiated the confrontation and who was on top (doesn't help the defense and it certainly doesn't negate the other facts the case).
15. There is conflicting witness statements who was screaming (Zimmerman himself said it doesn't sound like me only to change his tune later).

If I am on the jury that's enough circumstantial evidence to convict Martin of at least manslaughter because I don't believe his actions to be reasonable. You can laugh and yell all you fcking want Joe but there is enough to convict him and I certainly would find him guilty as charged. I will go back to the prosecutor's statements and I will collect on my bets...Believe that!

p.s. Can you tell us what Affirmative Defense is all about?

None of what you said addresses:

(1) Is there reasonable doubt as to who initiated the physical confrontation. Hell, You even admit "There is conflicting witness statements about who initiated the confrontation and who was on top (doesn't help the defense and it certainly doesn't negate the other facts the case)." It isn't about "negating" evidence; it's about "reasonable doubt". You're entire list is devoid of any evidence circumstantial or otherwise as to who initiated the physical combat.

(2) Is there reasonable doubt that GZ in fear of his life at the time he shot TM. You at least include relevent facts (weight, MMA training). Of course you ignore Good's statements, the EMT at the scene and several other aspects.

Again, it's hard to take anything you say seriously given your initial reaction and refusal to think critically at any point since then.

Can't get the youtube at work.