Trayvon Martin Case

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

To be clear, I understand that is what you think happened and why. I also agree that it is a reasonable explanation of what happened that night.

My question to you is - Is it the only reasonable explanation of what happened that night? For me, I just don't know with any degree of certainty who started the fight and I believe that, at the moment he fired the gun, Zimmerman really was reasonably in fear of his life. Are you saying that my belief is completely irrational and has no support from the evidence submitted?

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

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

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

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

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Chico23231]

For sure Joe. It will be interesting how the jury finds the case, my hunch is guilty manslaughter, but think its close at 50-50. I just hope no riots breakout to add to Zim's bodycount.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

Hey, OTM. Enjoyed reading your posts, as well as JoeR and RR's in this thread, even though you and I apparently disagree.


So, OTM, I really don't understand why you quote the standards for self defense, and then appear to think that the burden of proof rests with the defense in this case.

this is an interesting case. i think everyone here is being "reasonable" in their approach and thoughts but yet we have a split of opinion on the warpath ..


im not a crim def atty, and it appears this has been covered ad nauseum in this thread since you posted .. but after spending 10 seconds i believe what has already been said in here ... the burden is on the defendant to establish a prima facie case of justified self-defense, then the burden swings back to the prosecution to prove beyond a reas doubt that the amount of force used in self defense was unjustified ....

and sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case can come from any where and anyone, it doesnt have to come from the defendant's own mouth or even from the defendant's witnesses . . just as long as the admitted evid at trial supports it . .

[JoeRedskin]

Given that it's a jury of 6 women, It's a shame we only have DRave's take on the issue - would love to see if the opposite gender is as equally divided as we seem to be.

(No knock on you DRave, I appreciate your input - just would be nice if we had some variety).

DRave is the one who made the early call of mistrial - just looking at our reactions, that is starting to seem like a very likely outcome. Not changing my prediction, just questioning it more. lol

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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


Where oh where is there one single, on-point Florida case that says "the defendant's statements are insufficient evidence in an affirmative defense claim."? Because the Sipple case says exactly the opposite [BTW - see the "cert denied" descriptive in the Peterka cite means the Supremes had a chance to reverse but didn't, just an FYI for you next Holiday Inn stay]. Bring the law b/c so far all you've brought is bullshit.

As to your claim "you didn't seem to think earlier there is a burden on the defense and now you're claiming to have said there is all along". There isn't a "burden" as you seem to be defining it. Rather, what I have consistently said was that, in this case, GZ doesn't have to prove anything b/c a prima facia showing of the self-defense claim has been made by the prosecution. That is an absolutely correct statement of the law and you have yet to cite one relevant case or statute to dispute it. I have conceded that, if the prosecution's case had not provided the prima facia evidence for such his claim, GZ would have the "burden" of the making a minimal showing. Even then, and contrary to your continuous assertions, however, it is not his burden to prove a reasonable doubt but, rather, simply to create a question of fact as to the existence of reasonable doubt. That's the f'ing law and nothing - NOTHING - you have brought to the table contradicts that except your whiny cries of "nuh -uhhh".

I do this for a living and will beat on you all day just b/c it's fun to show your bias and intentional ignorance. Quote an on point Florida case, statute or regulation that supports you assertion and overturns Sipple, Jenkins and a host of other Florida case law. You can't. You got nothing but ignorance, bias and petulance left.

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


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

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

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

[over the mountain]

gentlemen, you cant fight in here. This is the war room.

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by joeredskin

given that it's a jury of 6 women, it's a shame we only have drave's take on the issue - would love to see if the opposite gender is as equally divided as we seem to be.

(no knock on you drave, i appreciate your input - just would be nice if we had some variety).

Drave is the one who made the early call of mistrial - just looking at our reactions, that is starting to seem like a very likely outcome. Not changing my prediction, just questioning it more. Lol

ha since when do we care about a woman's opinion......................

[saden1]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

LMAO. These two posts are too good not to respond to. For the post above, I was going to respond with, "Do you understand in what way 5th amendment rights apply in this case, saden?" But why try to provide some reasoning to your thinking myself? Saden, how does this case you cite applies to the Zimmerman case?

OMG. I saw this website earlier and figured it was so in favor of Zimmerman it would be dismissed as too biased. Saden, like the prosecution in this case, you keep giving victory to your opponent. In this example, you don't understand that not all affirmative defenses are alike.

From the website you brought up yourself:

Florida Law on Self-Defense : Use of Deadly and Non Deadly Force

What Evidence is Required to Raise a Self-Defense Claim in Florida?

The defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense in Florida when there is any evidence to support the claim. This is a low standard and even a “scintilla” of evidence will be sufficient, even if the self-defense theory is extremely weak or improbable. Self-defense may even be inferred from the State’s evidence without the Defendant or a defense witness ever taking the stand.


Read further, I think the website you brought up pretty much addresses and then invalidates every argument you've made in this thread, saden.

I really tired to read and comprehend your cluster **** of a post before I realize you're a dummy.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

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


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

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

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

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

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

It is just that simple.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

I really tired to read and comprehend your cluster **** of a post before I realize you're a dummy.

Let me simplify ... everything you have cited in support of your argument demonstrates your ignorance b/c they say the exact opposite of what you are asserting AND this is apparent to everyone here but you (and maybe G84C).

[saden1]

Dont believe me...and certainly dont believe Joe. Here is the case...read it and come to your own conclusion.


SIPPLE v. STATE, No. 5D06-2861., November 30, 2007 - FL District Court of Appeal | FindLaw

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Let me simplify ... everything you have cited in support of your argument demonstrates your ignorance b/c they say the exact opposite of what you are asserting AND this is apparent to everyone here but you (and maybe G84C).

You should consult your supervising associate/partner on this matter...perhaps they will be able to enlighten you.

[JoeRedskin]

Zimmerman is also being charged with Manslaughter as it is a lesser included charge of murder 2 (Meaning: All the elements necessary to prove manslaughter are included in the original charge or murder 2 and, conversely, all the defenses applicable to Manslaughter are equally applicable to murder 2. As such, the prosecutors is not bringing any "new" charges that must be defended by Zimmerman).

Attorneys are arguing the instructions now (well, this morning). The self-defense instruction will be given. It will not include an instruction that following Martin was a lawful act but the defense is free to tell the jury that in its closing.

I would love to see the final version of the jury instructions. It sounds as if the judge is following the pattern instructions with some modifications. In my experience, most judges don't like to vary from the pattern instructions as they are generally developed by the appellate courts with existing caselaw in mind and, as such, their language is generally considered "appeal proof".

[over the mountain]

joe - have you ever had a plaintiff attorney start/do their opening in this way ..

1. "this case is about one rule.

all (doctors, cities, drivers, etc) have a duty to not needless harm others."

blah blah blah

"when a person causes another harm, they are responsible for the harm that they caused ..."

2. "Now let me tell you a story . . . (tells facts of case in a story narrative focusing on the defendant's conduct)

3. "who we are and why we are here ... my name is blah blah blah and I represent blah blah blah .."

4. explain burden of proof, what the witnesses will say, what the defense expert will say and why he is a paid-for opinion favorable to the person paying him ....

5. "the american justice system in the finest and fairest in the world . . . you took an oath to not allow any bias or undue influence on your verdict .. the word verdict means 'to speak the truth' and at the end of this case this is what you are going to be asked to do, to speak the truth and to be the conscientious of the community .. i promise to not waste your time and i will do my best to only put on the witnesses and evidence i think you need to hear and consider for you to make an informed decision and in return I ask that you listen to what the people have to say when they take the stand ... "

this trial approach is called "reptile" developed by don keenan and david ball. ive been flown around the country to their various seminars and million dollar club plaintiff attorneys are eating it up ... the DRI has seminars on how to combat reptile

i assume you know about pat malone and rick friedman "rules of the road" . .

link to a pat malone closing, not his greatest that ive read but he is the best imo. Reporter's Official Transcript Of Proceedings (Mr. Malone's Closing Argument) | Jones v. Prince George’s County, Maryland | Patrick Malone & Associates P.C. | DC Injury Lawyers - JDSupra