-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
natina
TRAYVON MARTIN is an inocent youth
Thank you for once again proving how full of crap you are.
Maybe he was... but your facts and statements here do not support it, let us not forget just a few days ago you said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
natina
zimmerman lies to police saying he was the one hollering and screaming for help not knowing that the screams would be forensically analysis and he would be found to be a lie
your voice is as UNIQUE AS A FINGER PRINT.
voice identification NOW IS JUST LIKE FINGER PRINTS thats how terroist or potential terroist are caught now .
Or would you like to skip the fact that the judge refused to allow a couple of the state witnesses with an expertise in voice analysis as the judge agreed that the standards being used by them weren't widely accepted by the scientific community?
Or that on the 6th day of the trial (7/1) Dr. Hirotaka Nakasone from the FBI, an expert in speech identification and speaker identification (a state witness) testified YET AGAIN that current technology & science cannot identify the identity or age from a scream.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
natina
who was going to his father house after purchasing some candy and an ice tea when an embolded man who has had MMA training and was armed and was over zealous
If Trayvon was simply 'going to his father(sic) house'... how did he not make it?
The distances involved suggest that Trayvon did not in fact go home (nor was chased down)... but instead doubled back or waited... a claim supported by the recording of George Zimmerman today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
natina
tried to detain him and probably pushed him and attempted to take him to the ground with his MMA training.
You mean you have evidence that not even the State of Florida prosecutors have? I think they'd be very eager to know what you have as they are clearly behind and could use every little bit of help they can.
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
broncofan
We are on the same page mostly, but you just seem saturated with glee over the mistakes of the prosecution.
I am in the same way that I was in the Duke Lacrosse case... I can see when an overzealous prosecutor has overstepped their bounds and the realm of the supporting evidence and legality and not only hope for the acquittal of the accused... but also the same result to fall upon Angela Corey as did Mike Nifong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
broncofan
The prosecution should have responded to the initial mistakes and outrage with diligence and not made a charge that is difficult to sustain.
No argument... provided there was a charge that they felt confident that they could have brought... though today we heard the testimony from Investigator Chris Serino, the lead detective in the case seemed to believe much of what Zimmerman had said... and even during a later interview when he lied to Zimmerman, claiming there was a tape of the incident, Zimmerman replied "Thank God!" tells quite a different story than what the state is claiming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
broncofan
I am not familiar with Florida homicide statutes. For instance, some states have different degrees of manslaughter, with negligent homicide being a less culpable form. Voluntary manslaughter may also have been a winnable charge.
True to a point... however the self defense claim still comes into play here... which Mark O'Mara (lead defender) has done a remarkable job of weaving into his cross examinations of each of the state witnesses thus far... virtually all of which have given significant testimony that support the defense theory and not that of the prosecution.
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
broncofan
This is the part I disagree with. I don't see that following really. The prosecutor is responsible for the decisions she makes, though she doesn't make them in a vacuum.
This can be viewed as going hand with the actions of perjurious Rachel Jeantel... who made multiple (on the record) false statements to police and others... the key difference is that Rachel Jeantel is a simple gal who was put into a high pressure situation (ie giving her first statement on the killing in the presence of Trayvon Martin's mother)... while Angela Corey is said to be an experienced prosecutor.
While the prior giving such statements I will give a small pass to... a great deal of pressure would have to be applied to cause the later to do what they did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
broncofan
Just looking at the overall trajectory of events is enough to make me want to see him locked up. I was outraged, and there was a lot of collective outrage.
Sorry to see/hear you are so swayed by public outrage... long ago I learned that if I am on the popular side of anything... that I should re-examine my views as I may be wrong... and quite often I found that I was as the popular option is rarely the right one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
broncofan
But the prosecutors legal mistakes are her own, however zealous she thinks she should be and however she misinterprets the public's will.
I blame the prosecutor... just as I do a Roman emperor long ago looking down upon a pair of gladiators with the power of life and death... with a single movement of the thumb, they would choose who lived and who died... and often based on the input of the collective mass assembled.
This I'm afraid is little different. There is a group out for blood and is seeking a slow and rather incompetent lynching to achieve their ends... who will be very outraged that their attempts failed... and a person (prosecutor or emperor) who was more concerned with entertainment value than actual 'justice'.
In all of my years I have never been a member of such a lynch mob... and while such a powerful official should no better than to give in to certain types of public outcries... those who did participate in the swaying of them deserve full blame as well.
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
I think claiming he was killed for "walking in white suburbia" is a little farfetched....I don't know what transpired that day, but I highly doubt that's how it played out. And, in many of the news articles written about the case, it's obvious they're trying to infuriate people further by claiming Zimmerman was white (when he's not)... and that a horrible white guy is killing an innocent, powerless black child. I'm sorry, I don't buy it. It's sad nonetheless that this 17 year old boy was killed, but it's easy to jump on the bandwagon of sympathy without fully knowing all the facts.
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
setting a bad precedence if zimmerman goes free
this will mean anyone can profile you, stalk/pursue you then confront you with out the proper authority and without proper training which would certainly instigate a fight.zimmerman had NO uniform or ID to show that he was not a threat to trayvon martin.
zimmerman is not a model citizen, he has a violent and troubled past. while trayvon martin does not have a criminal history and was doing well in school according to a teacher. a police officer stated he was a "good kid".
Investigator: Zimmerman missed opportunities to defuse situation
(CNN) -- George Zimmerman failed to identify himself twice during a confrontation with Trayvon Martin and missed opportunities to defuse the situation that led to the death of the teen, a detective says in a newly released report.
Zimmerman, who served as a neighborhood watch volunteer, is charged with second-degree murder in the February 26 shooting death of Martin, 17, in Sanford, Florida.
Martin's family and civil rights activists said Zimmerman, who is white and Hispanic, racially profiled Martin and ignored a 911 dispatcher's advice not to follow him.
Also released Tuesday was an unredacted capias request, a request that someone be taken into custody, prepared by the lead police investigator in the case, Christopher Serino.
"Investigative findings show that (Zimmerman) had at least two opportunities to speak with (Martin) in order to defuse the circumstances surrounding their encounter," Serino wrote in the report. "On at least two occasions (Zimmerman) failed to identify himself as a concerned resident or a neighborhood watch volunteer."
The detective also said Zimmerman's actions "are inconsistent with those of a person who has stated he was in fear of another subject."
In the same report, Serino wrote that Zimmerman's injuries were "marginally consistent with a life-threatening violent episode as described by him."
Mark O'Mara, Zimmerman's defense attorney, said it will be up to a judge and jury to interpret what Serino's report means to the case.
"I don't want to get into a battle with investigator Serino's report considering what he believed after it seems he made the decision that charges should be filed," O'Mara said Tuesday.
"The lead detective made the determination at least on two different occasions Zimmerman had opportunity to defuse the situation. When he got out the car, he could have at least said, 'I'm a neighborhood watch volunteer' to defuse the situation and it's likely Trayvon Martin would be living today," Crump said.
"The lead detective today got demoted.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/27/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn
video talks about new evidence & zimmermans gift to the DA and MARTIN FAMILY
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/19/justic...iew/index.html
http://wearytravelermusings.blogspot...ell-truth.html
the police say that trayvon martin was a " good kid" with "NO CRIMMINAL RECORD" unlke zimmerman who has an extensive crimminal record of violence and police brutality
TEACHER RECALLS TRAVON MARTIN
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/2...ical-teen.html
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
A Stupid Gun Owner is a Dangerous Gun Owner
Responsible gun owners and defenders of the right to self-defense must demand the prosecution of George Zimmerman
Police in the central Florida town of Sanford have said that 28-year-old George Zimmerman says he shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in self-defense during a confrontation in a gated community. Police have described Zimmerman as white; his family says he is Hispanic and not racist. (US News)
Neighborhood vigilante George Zimmerman murdered young Trayvon Martin. I don't see how a reasonable person could reach any other conclusion. News outlets are blaming Florida's Stand Your Ground Law, but that's just agenda reporting.
Nothing in that law green-lights what Zimmerman did. He was flat-out wrong. Criminally wrong. You can’t just go chasing law-abiding citizens down the street at the point of a gun.
Zimmerman told a police dispatcher that the teen was "up to no good" because he was walking through his neighborhood "just walking around, looking about" with his "hands on his waistband." Does the idiot have kids? That's what teens do!
Zimmerman chased after Martin, complaining to the dispatcher, "These a******s always get away."
Hell yeah! When a gun-toting man is chasing you, you're going to try to get away. Of course Martin’s going to run. He probably thought Zimmerman was a pedophile or some kind of crazy person. He had every right to run. He also had a right to turn around and “jump” Zimmerman “from behind” (how do you get jumped from behind by someone you’re chasing? Zimmerman is lying.)
When someone chases you down and assaults you, you have a right to fight back. Too bad the kid didn’t end up kicking the dumb bastard’s head in.
The perpetrator was not “standing his ground,” he was chasing down an innocent young man who was just trying to get back to his house before the second half started. If anything, had the kid killed Zimmerman, that same law would have protected him.
This is a tragedy. It is assault with a deadly weapon and murder. And Florida's Stand Your Ground law needs to stand. It will protect potential victims from assaults by people like George Zimmerman.
The law did not authorize Zimmerman to chase down an innocent person. He was the aggressor in this instance.
http://westernhero.blogspot.com/2012_03_01_archive.html
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
ARGUMENT FOR NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE
Detective faulted George Zimmerman for not avoiding confrontation with Trayvon Martin.
Neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman missed two opportunities to try to peacefully approach Trayvon Martin before he fatally shot the unarmed teenager, according to an investigator's report released Tuesday.
"The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement, or conversely if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each party's concern," investigator Chris Serino wrote in an arrest warrant affidavit.
The affidavit was filed more than two weeks after the shooting when the Sanford Police Department was being criticized for not having arrested Zimmerman. Serino's March 13 affidavit recommended Zimmerman be picked up for manslaughter, but a special prosecutor assigned to take over the case upped the charge to second-degree murder.
The documents released Tuesday are part of the public pre-trial records filed in the criminal case.
Zimmerman, 28, maintains he feared for his life and shot Martin in self-defense under Florida's "stand your ground law." He said he fired the fatal shot only after being ambushed and brutally attacked by the 17-year-old.
The deadly encounter occurred in a gated Sanford, Fla., neighborhood where Zimmerman lived and Martin was staying with a family friend. Zimmerman called 911 to report Martin as a suspicious person walking through the area. He told the operator Martin was "up to no good" and "has his hand in his waist band."
In the report released Tuesday, police say Zimmerman contradicted himself by saying that he was initially fearful of Martin but later got out of his vehicle and followed after the teen.
"His actions are inconsistent with those of a person who has stated he was in fear of another subject," Serino wrote.
The Orlando Sentinel reported Tuesday afternoon that Serino, Sanford's lead investigator on the case, has been granted a request to move from detective work to patrol duty.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...192523670.html
.
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
DA;Papantonio: Trayvon Killer Should Be Charged With Premeditated Murder
Papantonio: Trayvon Killer Should Be Charged With Premeditated Murder
Mike Papantonio talks with Ed Schultz about his views on the Trayvon Martin murder, as well as Florida's flawed "Stand Your Ground" law.
Papantonio: Trayvon Killer Should Be Charged With Premeditated Murder - YouTube
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
Neighborhood Watch volunteer George Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martin, pursued him, frightened him, confronted him then shot him during a struggle, prosecutors alleged Thursday.
That's what the probable-cause affidavit filed Thursday by Special Prosecutor Angela Corey reveals. It is the first look at the criminal case that prosecutors plan to mount against Zimmerman.
The account is strikingly similar to the story that Trayvon's parents, the family's attorneys and civil-rights leaders have told for weeks — that Trayvon was an innocent victim hunted down and killed because he was black.
Herr found the affidavit legally sufficient to establish probable cause and ordered Zimmerman to appear for arraignment — when defendants formally enter a plea — on May 29 before Circuit Judge Jessica Recksiedler.
But the probable-cause affidavit, prepared by two investigators in her office, spelled out the bare bones of her case.
To Trayvon, it says, Zimmerman was a scary man, following him for some unknown reason. To Zimmerman, Trayvon was someone who was about to commit a crime, "a f------ punk," the affidavit said.
The affidavit offered evidence the state's position on three key points:
•"Zimmerman confronted Martin," it says, an apparent contradiction of Zimmerman's version of events.
•The state will argue that the voice heard crying for help in the background of one 911 call is Trayvon's. According to the affidavit, Trayvon's mother listened to the recording and identified the voice as her son's.
•State investigators will rely on the testimony of a friend of Trayvon's who told them she talked to the teenager on the phone in the lead-up to the shooting and heard the confrontation.
Based on the description, she appears to be the girl described by Martin family attorneys as his girlfriend.
When interviewed by state investigators, "The witness advised that Martin was scared because he was being followed through the complex by an unknown male and didn't know why," the affidavit said.
Trayvon tried to run home, the affidavit says, but Zimmerman ignored the advice of a police dispatcher and continued pursuing him on foot.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...-show-accident
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
natina
zimmerman is not a model citizen, he has a violent and troubled past. while trayvon martin does not have a criminal history and was doing well in school according to a teacher. a police officer stated he was a "good kid".
I'm not sure how you can say he was 'doing well in school' when he was just suspended for 10 days.
He may not have had a criminal history, but his suspension was for criminal type behavior, had he been an adult. He went to an area of the school students aren't allowed in (Trespassing), his backpack contained a baggie that had a slight bit of marijuana in it (drug possession), a large screwdriver that is perfect for breaking into things (burglars tools) and jewelry whose owner he 'didn't know' (stolen property), which may have been obtained by breaking into something using that screwdriver. There is a bunch of jewelry in your backpack and you don't know who it belongs to?
Don't get me wrong, I think Zimmerman could have and should have taken his opportunities to have just told Trayvon that he was neighborhood watch and didn't recognize him as somebody living in the area. Then Trayvon could have said he just moved in, that's why you don't recognize me. Maybe it would have been friendly. Even if it was a bit tense,and they cursed each other out, I don't think it would have led to a killing.
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
The POLICE are pissed that the DA turned on them when pressure from ON HIGH said to fry Zimmerman for the National TV cameras.
The LAW that the cops went by that night said Zimmerman was allowed to carry a gun, and was allowed to use it when he felt his life was in danger. In spirit, that law is understandable.
This is the United States.
The FLIP SIDE of that Law says you don't go up and hassle some guy for walking home from the store. You don't kill someone because you're losing a fist fight.
Zimmerman broke the first Law of the Penal Code: Innocent until proven guilty. That's the first thing they teach you at the Police Academy.
What possible reason would you even have to stop a guy walking down the street?
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
Can Zimmerman win over the jurors?
John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
(CNN) -- Trial lawyers use an expression -- "You can't unring a bell" -- after a jury is exposed to something damaging. Even if a judge commands people to disregard that something, the harm is done once the words have been uttered.
George Zimmerman may be wishing that several ringing bells sounded in his attorney's opening statement last week could be unrung, beginning with a now infamous joke.
After a streamlined prosecution opening in which a rapt courtroom was told of efforts to resuscitate Trayvon Martin's lifeless form and heard a straightforward argument that Zimmerman shot Martin "because he wanted to, not because he had to," Zimmerman's attorney Don West chose to open his defense by telling a joke.
Resorting to humor -- even in traffic court -- is fraught with risk, but seems a particularly unwise idea at the outset of a murder case in which the defense must counter the appearance of casual and callous indifference on Zimmerman's part. Even worse, perhaps, it runs the risk of appearing to trivialize the trial itself. (The joke chosen even implies that selected jurors who weren't savvy enough to dodge their civic duty will now have their time wasted.)
Prosecutors will tell you that the most significant challenge to securing a guilty verdict is to persuade initially resistant jurors to grasp the gravity of a case, making them at least open to returning a guilty verdict. Several post-joke comments made by West in his opening could unwittingly pave a path to conviction.
West said that it was a dangerous dog in Zimmerman's neighborhood that forced his hand, necessitating that he buy a 9 mm Kel-Tec PF automatic firearm. The attorney matter-of-factly suggested it was the American way for an ordinary person, faced with an uncontrolled animal in his community, to procure a firearm. (Firing shots at a menacing dog could easily imperil others, of course.)
Arguing that during the confrontation with Martin, Zimmerman's head was struck against the pavement, West told the jury: "When you get your bell rung, stuff happens." While defending an emotional case like this is admittedly a tricky high-wire act, these words suggest an act of vengeance by an armed man rather than a genuine effort to avoid death. It will not be surprising to hear those words repeated back in the prosecution's closing statement. Five of the six jurors are mothers for whom "stuff happens" may seem an insufficient accounting for the termination of a life cut short shy of two decades.
By his lawyer's account, Zimmerman's worries were not confined to perceived community dangers, but to his own physical well-being. He wanted to learn martial arts, West said, but washed out of fight school, where he was described as too "soft."
Many defense attorneys deliver short openings or don't open at all because of the risk of a bad backfire. West's lengthy opening resulted in a composite picture of a person who easily conjures threats and fears, sought a gun as a leveler for his insecurities and whose response to these perceived threats could be seen as questionable and retaliatory.
Criminal defendants are not only at the mercy of the state's awesome powers, but also must live with the tactical decisions of their attorney. Trying to persuade an appeals court to overturn your conviction because of detrimental choices made by your lawyers at trial is all but impossible.
On Monday, the prosecution resorted to the often potent technique of using a defendant's inconsistent statements in an attempt to collapse his believability and blunt possible jury empathy for him. Prosecutors showed a video of Zimmerman giving an expansive explanation of what happened during a scene walk-through the day after the shooting, followed by playing a lengthy taped interview that was conducted by Sanford police a couple of days later.
The prosecution hopes that jurors will agree that the more Zimmerman explains his actions, the more self-serving he sounds, and the less trustworthy he will appear, something vitally important for someone who, when all is said and done, offers the only account detailed enough to justify using lethal force.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/02/opinio...ss_igoogle_cnn
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bobvela
In all of my years I have never been a member of such a lynch mob... and while such a powerful official should no better than to give in to certain types of public outcries... those who did participate in the swaying of them deserve full blame as well.
I don't think I'm swayed by public outrage. I was outraged based on what I perceived as an injustice. I am not outraged because other people are outraged nor should I be responsible for their excesses. I also don't really think I should have to temper my response unreasonably just because other people have bad judgment.
For instance, when Spike Lee is giving out addresses (incorrect ones it turns out) hoping that he can encourage vigilante violence why should that be laid at my feet? I have never supported that type of extra-judicial punishment, which is part of the reason I find Zimmerman's actions appalling to begin with. Like Trish, I want due process for Zimmerman and though prosecutors have discretion not to prosecute, I think prosecuting him for manslaughter at least is the right choice. If I recall, prosecutors only have to believe there is probable cause to sustain a charge. They do not have to be convinced at the outset beyond a reasonable doubt that the charges they pursue will yield a conviction. As they become convinced of a defendant's innocence, they have a responsibility not to pursue those charges.
As for self-defense, I am convinced that what George Zimmerman did was beyond what is and should be permitted by law. Self-defense in most states is an all or nothing defense and is not used to mitigate criminal liability if the mens rea and actus reus of the more severe charge is satisfied. However, the concept of "imperfect self-defense" which is used in a few jurisdictions makes the most sense to me in these kinds of difficult cases. Someone satisfies imperfect self-defense and mitigates a murder charge to manslaughter if they can establish that while their life may not have been imperiled enough to justify deadly force they held a subjective (though not objectively reasonable) belief that they were in such danger.
The facts so far appear as follows to me. George Zimmerman followed someone and engaged in what could colloquially be referred to as harassment. There was a confrontation and a fistfight ensued. Zimmerman was losing the fistfight and probably quite badly. He then pulled out his gun and saved himself further injury and humiliation by killing the person he was fighting. His attacker was unarmed and had been followed without reasonable cause by an armed man who was engaging in a pattern of profiling young black men. Whether this last fact makes Zimmerman a racist is not my focus. His vigilance and officiousness was uncalled for, precipitated a confrontation that he was too anxious to end with deadly force. He created each and every risk that culminated in a young man's death.
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
This thread is too long to read to make an informed commentary. I will, rather, "try to get in where I fit in."
Remember the Bernard Goetz story in NYC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhar...Criminal_trial
There is a great comparison and contrast in that story to victim(s), shooter, perception of danger, self defense rights and law, public reaction, etc.
I promise not to watch this Zimmerman case because I believed it would anger me to assess the developments in this matter. I wondered why there was no discussion of it here until I read the last page of this thread. It prompted me to watch the trial for the first time yesterday.
Out of all I observed yesterday (including talking heads commentary). I find it interesting that black people (particularly our youth) seemingly present a more severe threatening and menacing effacement that warrants lethal force by a civilian -and in similar cases the police authorities as well present such culpability. Whereas, some people have not to worry about mistakenly or intentionally being subjected to such extremes.
:praying:
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
Sounds like this would be a tough case to decide on as a juror so far:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/03/us...ents.html?_r=0
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
The trial is a mockery. There will be concessions for everyone at the end of the day and parting gifts for everyone , including the media. I doubt if anything is as it seems....
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
starkem
The trial is a mockery.
Please explain this statement.
Have you ever witnessed a trial in courtroom...or served on a jury in a criminal case?
It is often said that trial is a search for truth. It can't be perfect because we don't have a God Cam...so we go by evidence. Sometimes there isn't any...sometimes it's mostly circumstantial...sometimes it's pretty damning and cut and dried.
I have seen a fair amount courtroom proceedings in my life...so far from what I've read (not witnessed obviously) about this particular trial..it doesn't come across as a mockery.
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
You know, I was coming back to this thread to state that "mockery" may be too strong of a word or even misplaced.
I will indulge your inquiry to say this however: I refer to the prevailing circumstances leading up to outcry for justice and the subsequent grand jury and trial as evidence that the trial, drama and courtroom media coverage serves to pacify pendants on both sides of the issues of wrongful death and/or right to vigilance and self defense. That is a mockery of justice in my personal opinion, but not as the trial perse.
Accordingly, and as to the one day of the entire trial that I only watched yesterday's segment: I observed no sense of mockery. In fact, I particularly like the testimony of the Medical Examiner, expert witness that testified as to Zimmermans condition after the fatal encounter. I have a certain disdain/respect for lawyers, judges, juries and courtrooms that I will leave to the readers own conclusion.
I do think that your inquiry of my statement was justified as such. Hopefully the answer conveys some clarity. Ahh...wait! I just thought of the word: transparent, illusion -a trial of superficial significance to appease those similarly effected to the expense of a mockery of justice to those with some exposure to the above mentioned professionals and procedures. LOL. That is definitely an extremely harsh statement. (smiles). Perhaps, I will withdraw and acknowledge the futility of my statement as it pertains to this case to play it on the safe side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fred41
Please explain this statement.
Have you ever witnessed a trial in courtroom...or served on a jury in a criminal case?
It is often said that trial is a search for truth. It can't be perfect because we don't have a God Cam...so we go by evidence. Sometimes there isn't any...sometimes it's mostly circumstantial...sometimes it's pretty damning and cut and dried.
I have seen a fair amount courtroom proceedings in my life...so far from what I've read (not witnessed obviously) about this particular trial..it doesn't come across as a mockery.
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
There is no way from what I saw yesterday from the prosecution that they will be able to prove murder 2. Granted, I have not any other portions of the trial, but I think it was a little zealous and presumptuous on the part of the state to seek the higher penalty.
Of course, manslaughter is not off the table (according to what was reported), and Zimmerman has been his own worst enemy -Zimmerman having presented so many alleged discrepancies with regard to the fatal occurrence. Having only seen one day of this trial' I still find it rather unsettling that some of the news analyst that I watched (lawyers) said that it appears that the prosecution is blowing the case. I'm not sure if the same was suggested on other post cort day analysis shows like MSNBC.
*shrugs*
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
The problem with media trials is the human factor. Usually it should be about whether or not a defendant is guilty...but (and especially when there is media coverage)...the stakes are higher: a successful defense attorney can make more money in the future, and a successful prosecutor can go higher up the political ladder. So they sometimes have a bigger audience to play to than just the jury.
..and then there is the judge who has to referee the whole thing (and deal with their own, often inflated egos).
...but this is still, in my eyes, a relatively simple trial...not too many witnesses ..and only one defendant. I doubt the defense is going to complicate this, but you never know what will happen in a case until both sides have rested.
If the prosecution aimed too high, then the jury can still convict on the lesser included charges...(again..read this one page..it tells you what they might be towards the middle: http://www.jlellis.net/blog/zimmerma...uded-offenses/ ) If they don't find him guilty of anything, there will be a civil trial...or they could wind up hung and we do this all over again. That's how it works.
It's hard to say what will happen, because I'm not sitting in that jury box. I'm not the one who has to decide if there's enough evidence to convict the defendant of anything...but that is what a trial is for. I can read stories about the testimony...but I'm not there...hearing it live...watching facial reactions..deciding who sounds truthful and who doesn't.
..up to now though...if you go by Zimmerman's story as published by the media...Murder 2 probably won't happen...maybe not manslaughter either..it depends how much of his story you believe...of course he can always take the stand and ruin it for himself...you never know...the human element makes trials unpredictable.
...but it's up to a jury (and in some cases a judge). Based on what they see and hear. Not what we read and hear.
..because a lot of us probably wouldn't have been picked as a juror in this case anyway.
-
Does DNA evidence contradict Zimmerman?
Does DNA evidence contradict Zimmerman?
Prosecutors in the George Zimmerman trial presented evidence of DNA test results to the jury Wednesday that may contradict the former neighborhood watch captain's story of how Trayvon Martin died.
Anthony Gorgone, DNA lab analyst for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, methodically walked the jury through the results from his DNA testing of Zimmerman's gun, the clothing both individuals wore the night of the shooting, and scrapings from Martin's finger nails.
Zimmerman did not show any emotion as the Gorgone gave his testimony, but it appeared he was paying close attention.
Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder for killing 17-year-old Martin in Sanford, Florida, on February 26, 2012. Zimmerman told police that the teenager looked suspicious and that there had been several break-ins in the neighborhood. The two got into a physical altercation and Zimmerman said he was forced to draw his gun and kill Martin in self-defense.
Protests were held around the country when it appeared Zimmerman wasn’t going to be arrested for Martin’s death. Zimmerman was eventually charged with second-degree murder in April of 2012. The case has reinvigorated national conversations about race, racial profiling and self-defense laws.
Gorgone testified Wednesday that he only found Zimmerman's DNA on the gun he used to shoot Martin, and did not find any of Martin's DNA on the gun. Zimmerman's holster only tested positive for Zimmerman's DNA as well. The lack of Martin's DNA on the gun and the holster may contradict Zimmerman's claim that Martin grabbed his gun during the altercation.
Gorgone testified that testing of Martin's hooded jacket that he was wearing as an outer layer the night of shooting did not yield much of Zimmerman's DNA. Only one stain on Martin's hooded jacket yielded a partial DNA profile that matched Zimmerman. This may challenge the claim Zimmerman and Martin were in fight for their lives, if only a minimal amount of Zimmerman's skin or blood transferred to Martin's outer clothing. Scrapings from under Martin's fingernails yielded none of Zimmerman's DNA.
Martin was also wearing a gray sweatshirt under his hooded jacket. Gorgone said two stains on that sweatshirt matched both Martin's and Zimmerman's DNA.
During cross examination, defense attorney Don West pointed out that Martin's sweatshirts were wet from rain the night of the shooting, and they were not allowed dry before they were stored in plastic bags. Gorgone said if wet evidence is not left to air dry before being stored in plastic mildew can degrade DNA evidence.
West asked, "Frankly then you just didn't find much of anything on this gray hooded sweatshirt when it boils right down to it?"
"Just that partial profile on stain A" said Gorgone.
West asked, "That was the shirt that stunk to high heaven?"
"It didn't smell good," said Gorgone.
Earlier Wednesday, prosecutors called several witnesses to help support their assertion that the former neighborhood watch captain was a "wannabe cop" who well knew Florida's self-defense and "Stand Your Ground" laws.
Records admitted into evidence on the eighth day of testimony included a letter rejecting Zimmerman’s application to be a police officer in Virginia in 2009 because of his credit issues. A release form filed with the Sanford Police Department lists Zimmerman’s reason for wanting to ride along with them as, “solidify my chances of a career in law enforcement.” Records also indicate Zimmerman applied for a diploma in criminal justice in 2011 at Seminole State College in Florida.
The instructor who taught Zimmerman’s criminal litigation class testified Wednesday that he covered Florida’s self-defense laws extensively, even though there was no mention of them in the course book. "It's not one of those things that you're just going to whisk through in a day,” said Alexis Carter, who is now a military prosecutor.
The testimony seemed to counter a key claim that Zimmerman made last year in a Fox News interview that was replayed in court: that he didn’t know about Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” laws until after the shooting.
Self-defense laws were “something that I constantly iterated ... it was something that I think the students really wanted to know about, it was so practical, they were very much engaged in class discussion," Carter said. He called Zimmerman “one of the better students” in his class and said he gave him an A. He also said he taught his students about “imperfect self-defense,” which he said means “the force that you are encountering, you meet that force disproportionately -- excess force. Like a gunshot."
Prosecutors say that while evidence showing that Zimmerman wanted to be a cop isn’t “bad,” they hope it will give jurors some insight into his thought process the night he shot and killed Martin. They also suggest that his studies in criminal justice show Zimmerman knew how to testify and talk to police.
Scott Pleasants, another Seminole State College teacher, testified Wednesday via webcam about the criminal investigations class in which he taught Zimmerman. He says that while the course book covered profiling and how to testify as a witness, they never actually discussed it in class. A bizarre moment occurred when several Skype users started flooding prosecutor Richard Mantei’s account with calls. "There's a really good chance we're being toyed with," defense attorney Mark O'Mara said. Pleasants was able to resume his testimony via speakerphone and proceedings continued.
A firearms expert with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Amy Siewert, examined Zimmerman’s gun and said he had one bullet ready to fire in the chamber as well as a fully loaded magazine when he fatally shot Martin.
"They’re not much use if they’re not ready to fire, are they?" asked O'Mara.
"No," said Siewert.
The defense got her to agree that many law enforcement agents carry fully loaded weapons that are ready to fire. Siewert also showed jurors how the gun wouldn’t fire accidentally -- the trigger has to be pulled. But Siewert wouldn’t go so far as to call the loaded gun “safe,” saying it’s a matter of personal preference.
HLN is live-blogging Zimmerman's trial. Click here for HLN's live blog of Tuesday's testimony. Read below for minute-by-minute updates:
5:24 p.m. ET: The attorneys have joined the judge for a sidebar.
5:23 p.m. ET: Judge Nelson has recessed court for the evening. Court will pick back up Friday morning at 8:30 a.m. ET.
5:20 p.m. ET: Gorgone is done testifying, and the attorneys are now at a sidebar with the judge.
5:19 p.m. ET: De La Rionda has finished his re-direct examination. West is now asking Gorgone about the right cuff of Zimmerman's jacket again.
5:17 p.m. ET: Gorgone said none of Zimmerman's DNA was found on Martin's hooded jacket.
5:15 p.m. ET: De La Rionda asked Gorgone how Martin's DNA got of right cuff of Zimmerman's jacket. Gorgone said it could have gotten there many different ways, but it had to come in contact with Martin's DNA.
5:11 p.m. ET: The attorneys are at a sidebar with the judge.
5:10 p.m. ET: West has finished his cross examination of Gorgone. Prosecutor De La Rionda is now asking him questions.
5:09 p.m. ET: West has asked for a moment to confer with O'Mara.
5:07 p.m. ET: So far Gorgone has pointed out two stains, one on the front of Zimmerman jacket and one on the right cuff that containing both Martin and Zimmerman's DNA.
5:04 p.m. ET: Gorgone is just going over the stains found on Zimmerman's jacket that included Martin's DNA.
5:01 p.m. ET: West is now asking Gorgone to go back over the DNA results from Zimmerman's jacket.
4:58 p.m. ET: Gorgone is going back over the DNA he found on Martin's gray sweatshirt.
4:56 p.m. ET: West is now asking Gorgone about the testing conducted on Martin's gray sweatshirt he was wearing under the hooded jacket.
4:53 p.m. ET: West asked, "Frankly then you just didn't find much of anything on this gray hooded sweatshirt when it boils right down to it?"
"Just that partial profile on stain A" said Gorgone.
West asked, "That was the shirt that stunk to high heaven?"
"It didn't smell good," said Gorgone.
4:50 p.m. ET: West had Gorgone point out to the jury what stains he tested from Martin's hooded sweatshirt.
4:48 p.m. ET: Gorgone said he does determine or predict how DNA gets onto a surface.
4:45 p.m. ET: West is now going back over the DNA results from Martin's hooded sweatshirt.
4:43 p.m. ET: Gorgone is explaining how he uses chemicals to isolate DNA evidence, and ultimately tests it.
4:41 p.m. ET: West is asking Gorgone about how he tests materials for the presence of blood.
4:39 p.m. ET: Gorgone said the general practice is to let "wet" evidence air dry, before being placed in a plastic bag to avoid degradation of the DNA. The sweatshirts were still damp when he pulled them out of the plastics bag for testing.
4:35 p.m. ET: Martin's sweatshirts were sealed in biohazard plastic bags when he received them for testing.
4:33 p.m. ET: Gorgone is explaining how "wet" biological evidence should be dried or their is a risk environmental factors could degrade the DNA evidence. West is now asking about how Martin's sweatshirts were taken care by the evidence collectors.
4:29 p.m. ET: West is asking Gorgone about how his lab is accredited, and standardized.
4:26 p.m. ET: Gorgone said one stick is used to scrap each finger on one hand, and another stick is used for the fingers on the other hand.
4:24 p.m. ET: West keeps making the point that Gorgone was not involved in any DNA sample collection from evidence in the case or at the crime scene.
4:21 p.m. ET: Gorgone said when he tests fingernail scrappings he is really just looking for DNA that is foreign to person's whose fingernails are being tested.
4:18 p.m. ET: West is now asking Gorgone about the DNA samples from the scrapings from Martin's fingernails.
4:14 p.m. ET: Gorgone said he could not exclude or include Martin's DNA from being on the holster for Zimmerman's gun.
4:13 p.m. ET: West is asking Gorgone about the DNA tests results from the slide on Zimmerman's gun. Gorgone said he was unable to exclude Zimmerman's and Martin's DNA from being present on the gun slide. West made the point that environmental factors like rain could have affected the DNA quality on the slide.
4:10 p.m. ET: Gorgone said envirmental factors like moisture and heat and degrade DNA samples.
4:08 p.m. ET: West is asking Gorgone about his role in collecting DNA evidence. He said he does not collect DNA samples from the crime scene that is left to someone else.
4:05 p.m. ET: Defense attorney Don West is about to cross examine Gorgone.
4:04 p.m. ET: Judge Nelson is on the bench, and the jury is being seated.
3:40 p.m. ET: De La Rionda has finished his direct examination of Gorgone. Judge Nelson has recessed court for 15 minutes.
3:38 p.m. ET: Multiple stains on Zimmerman's shirt matched Zimmerman's DNA. None of the stains on the shirt have matched Martin's DNA.
3:35 p.m. ET: De La Rionda has now moved on to Gorgone's DNA testings results from Zimmerman's shirt he was wearing the night of the shooting.
3:28 p.m. ET: Multiple stains on Zimmerman's jacket tested positive for Zimmerman's DNA. At least two stains from Zimmerman's jacket, tested positive for a mixture of DNA that included Martin's DNA.
3:25 p.m. ET: Gorgone said a stain found on the back right shoulder of the jacket had a mixture of DNA. The major contributor to the mixture of the stain was Zimmerman, but the lesser contributor to that stain could not be determined. However, it is possible Martin contributed to that mixture.
3:22 p.m. ET: Two stains on Zimmerman's jacket tested positive for Zimmerman's DNA.
3:19 p.m. ET: Gorgone is pointing out to the jury all the different stains he tested from Zimmerman's jacket.
3:17 p.m. ET: De La Rionda has now moved on to the DNA testing Gorgone did on Zimmerman's jacket he was wearing the night of the shooting.
3:13 p.m. ET: One stain on the grey sweatshirt did not yield any results of foreign DNA, but Gorgone could not exclude the possibility that Zimmerman's DNA was in that stain.
3:08 p.m. ET: Gorgone said one stain on Martin's gray sweatshirt contained Zimmerman's DNA. Another stain tested positive for Martin's DNA, and yet another had a mixture with both Martin's and Zimmmerman's were included in the DNA mixture.
3:03 p.m. ET: De La Rionda has now moved on to testing Gorgone did on the sweatshirt Martin was wearing under his hooded jacket.
3:00 p.m. ET: Gorgone said he did not find anyone else's DNA on Martin's hooded jacket.
2:58 p.m. ET: One stain on Martin's hoodie did test positive for his DNA.
2:55 p.m. ET: De La Rionda is asking Gorgone to point to the stains he tested from Martin's clothing.
2:52 p.m. ET: Gorgone found Martin's DNA on the skittles bag he bought from the store moments before being shot.
2:48 p.m. ET: Scrapings from Martin's fingernails did not show the presence of Zimmerman's DNA.
2:46 p.m. ET: Gorgone did match DNA found on the holster for his gun to Zimmerman. He was able to exclude Martin's DNA as being on his holster.
2:44 p.m. ET: There was no testable DNA found on the slide of Zimmerman's gun.
2:41 p.m. ET: Gorgone was unable to find any testable DNA off the trigger of Zimmerman's gun.
2:38 p.m. ET: This chart shows the DNA testing results from DNA found on handle or grip of Zimmerman's gun. The DNA from the gun matched George Zimmerman's DNA profile. Martin's DNA was not present on the DNA mixture that was found on the grip of the gun.
2:36 p.m. ET: Defense attorney West is reviewing a chart that shows Gorgone's results from testing the DNA samples from Zimmerman's gun.
2:33 p.m. ET: De La Rionda is now asking Gorgone about DNA samples swabbed from Zimmerman's gun.
2:30 p.m. ET: De La Rionda is displaying results of the DNA testing in Zimmerman's case. Gorgone is explaining what the data means.
2:27 p.m. ET: De La Rionda is showing Gorgone the DNA samples he tested in this case.
2:24 p.m. ET: De La Rionda has now moved on Gorgone work in Zimmerman's case.
2:21 p.m. ET: Gorgone is explaining the probability another person in the population would match the DNA in sample from a crime scene.
2:17 p.m. ET: Gorgone said if he has a mixture of DNA from multiple people he can determine whose DNA is in the mixture.
2:14 p.m. ET: De La Rionda asked Gorgone how a DNA sample from a crime scene is compared to a DNA sample taken from a suspect.
2:11 p.m. ET: Gorgone is now talking about how a DNA sample can be taken by swabbing a surface like a gun or a table.
2:09 p.m. ET: Gorgone is explaining how he makes a DNA profile for a DNA sample.
2:07 p.m. ET: De La Rionda is now asking Gorgone about the specific DNA testing he did in Zimmerman's case.
2:04 p.m. ET: De La Rionda asked Gorgone to tell the jury about the precautions he takes to make sure the DNA samples being tested are not contaminated.
2:00 p.m. ET: Gorgone is explaining DNA and how it is used to identify to criminal suspects.
1:58 p.m. ET: Prosecutor Bernie De La Rionda has called Anthony Gorgone, Florida Department of Law Enforcement crime lab, to the stand.
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/07...ay-8?hpt=ju_c1
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
Quote:
Remember the Bernard Goetz story in NYC.
Apples & oranges. Goetz was under assault by multiple antagonists. Or at least that's the story that stuck. Zimmerman wasn't. He may have been unduly paranoid to start with, but Goetz was just sitting on the train, minding his own business. Zimmerman went out of his way to create a situation. He stalked, pursued. closed on, & confronted Martin. That's the assault. The fight is irrelevant because it began due to the initial assault. A rabbit will attack a hungry wolf if cornered. Zimmerman's 911 calls belie any claim of absent malice. That comparison doesn't work.
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
In a case like this where the law is somewhat nuanced, jurors are often unable to compare the facts to the legal standard very well. There is some disagreement on this subject, but if you believe jurors should only be triers of fact, then they will have difficulty translating whatever factual scenario they believe into a verdict.
There is also some confusion about burdens of production. Can jurors infer that what happened was murder because the probability of proper self-defense is extremely low? It's impossible to prove a negative, for instance, that Zimmerman did not have the right to self-defense. I think he was probably getting beaten up. But did he have a concussion? Did he get an MRI? A catscan? Did he go to the hospital because he was vomiting in the days after the event and showing acute symptoms of a concussion? Or was it just a case of an insecure man policing a neighborhood out of some delusion that he served some public service, who couldn't stand the fact that he was being beaten up?
Nobody wants to lose a fight. But if the law permitted you to end fistfights with a gun and call it self-defense, you'd have a lot of matters settled out of court, with the wrong party prevailing.
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
The reason I ask about self-defense is this. I was always taught that it was an affirmative defense. Now I am hearing that lack of self-defense is somehow mixed in with the prosecutor's prima facie case. Let's say it's an affirmative defense.
The prosecution proves murder by demonstrating that Zimmerman shot Martin with the intent to kill him or cause major bodily injury and he in fact died. The defense then has the burden of proving that there was a justification, that is, self-defense. If they cannot prove it as an affirmative defense in whole, the verdict should be murder.
I've been using the word reckless and negligent as intent standards somewhat recklessly (and maybe negligently). Someone recklessly causes a death if they commit an act where their purpose is not to cause a death and they do not commit the act with the knowledge that it will lead to death. The standard for recklessness is stated as consciously disregarding a known risk. Of course, this depends how far back you go in the sequence of events. Did Zimmerman consciously disregard a known risk by confronting someone without knowing proper procedure for conducting a search, not identifying himself as being law enforcement or neighborhood watch, all the while carrying a gun?
Because he certainly committed the final act with "purpose" intent to kill. This was not a case where he fired a gun in the air, disregarding the risk that it might as a probability, result in someone's death. He killed someone, purposefully. If self-defense is an all or nothing affirmative defense, then the only issue is whether he met its strictures in full.
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
As the following author of the link describes a concise overview of self defense:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06...-self-defense/
As soon as I read your prior post, I was motivated to find exactly what, if any, affirmative defenses were asserted by Zimmerman's defense team in this matter. I didn't locate reported (or actual) defendant's answer for this criminal proceeding. My search did yield the overview stated in the above link. Accordingly, there is a basic structure or principles for asserting this affirmative defense nationally. The author also mentions the procedures under penal codes for Florida as well.
For those not familiar with affirmative defense rules and terminology:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...mative+Defense
This procedural rule simply asserts a defendant is invoking a defense for which a law already exists to exhonorate or acquit a defendant whether said defendant has actually done as charged in the criminal complaint.
Otherwise, defendants answer (exclusive of this invocation of "affirmative defense") is tried on case law as to adjudication (court decision). Someone with more legal knowledge can correct my layperson explanation. Thanks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
broncofan
The reason I ask about self-defense is this. I was always taught that it was an affirmative defense. Now I am hearing that lack of self-defense is somehow mixed in with the prosecutor's prima facie case. Let's say it's an affirmative defense.
The prosecution proves murder by demonstrating that Zimmerman shot Martin with the intent to kill him or cause major bodily injury and he in fact died. The defense then has the burden of proving that there was a justification, that is, self-defense. If they cannot prove it as an affirmative defense in whole, the verdict should be murder.
I've been using the word reckless and negligent as intent standards somewhat recklessly (and maybe negligently). Someone recklessly causes a death if they commit an act where their purpose is not to cause a death and they do not commit the act with the knowledge that it will lead to death. The standard for recklessness is stated as consciously disregarding a known risk. Of course, this depends how far back you go in the sequence of events. Did Zimmerman consciously disregard a known risk by confronting someone without knowing proper procedure for conducting a search, not identifying himself as being law enforcement or neighborhood watch, all the while carrying a gun?
Because he certainly committed the final act with "purpose" intent to kill. This was not a case where he fired a gun in the air, disregarding the risk that it might as a probability, result in someone's death. He killed someone, purposefully. If self-defense is an all or nothing affirmative defense, then the only issue is whether he met its strictures in full.
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
Wasn't Martin defending himself? Wasn't he "standing his ground"?
I'm just sick & tired of punks like Zimmerman, who think a gun makes them a badass & gives them impunity to act like jerks. All I see is pussies with a bunch of false bravado, who can't possibly back any of it up without that fake dick strapped on. Has he shown any remorse, or just tried to redirect blame? Despite legal nuance, the undisputed fact is that he shot & killed somebody who wasn't armed.
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
Defense has to establish some suspicion or reasonable cause for Zimmerman to be alarmed and subsequently resisted by Trevon Martin to meet self defense. This can be accomplished by merely be allowed to introduce the background or witnesses as to Martin's character flaws (not saying it is right -just the premise of such a legal strategy). Even if the above can not be reasonably established by defense, and even if Zimmerman is deemed wrongfully the aggressor, the defense (if they asserted affirmative defense in their answer) can assert that Zimmerman's wrongful action became legal self defense because Martin subsequently acted with deadly force or inescapable harm to Zimmerman.
I do understand your frustration though. This is why I have a love/hate relationship with legal matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hippifried
Wasn't Martin defending himself? Wasn't he "standing his ground"?
I'm just sick & tired of punks like Zimmerman, who think a gun makes them a badass & gives them impunity to act like jerks. All I see is pussies with a bunch of false bravado, who can't possibly back any of it up without that fake dick strapped on. Has he shown any remorse, or just tried to redirect blame? Despite legal nuance, the undisputed fact is that he shot & killed somebody who wasn't armed.
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
Good you're not on the jury.
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
broncofan
The reason I ask about self-defense is this. I was always taught that it was an affirmative defense. Now I am hearing that lack of self-defense is somehow mixed in with the prosecutor's prima facie case. Let's say it's an affirmative defense.
The prosecution proves murder by demonstrating that Zimmerman shot Martin with the intent to kill him or cause major bodily injury and he in fact died. The defense then has the burden of proving that there was a justification, that is, self-defense. If they cannot prove it as an affirmative defense in whole, the verdict should be murder.
I think you may have 'affirmative defense' and 'burden of proof' confused. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so you could be right about those terms.
What I do know, though, is that the burden of proof falls on the Prosecution. For both the crime and the claim of self-defense.The State of Florida still must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman was NOT acting in self defense. If the jurors think it's 50/50 or even only 20/80 that it was self-defense, they are supposed to vote 'not guilty'. They have to be convinced to 100%, or very close to that.
The defense doesn't have to prove self-defense, they only have to raise a 'reasonable doubt'.
Again, here are my disclaimers - I wasn't there that night. I don't know what happened. I'm not taking either side or making up my mind until the trial is over.
However, I am critical of the media because I think you should know the answers if they were doing their jobs properly.
Yesterday, while the news stressed that the Prosecution caught Zimmerman in a lie he made during the interview with Sean Hannity, they ignored the fact that the Professor that testified about it, also went on to explain 'stand-your-ground' and 'self-defense'. And that part of his testimony was VERY helpful to Zimmerman. It allowed the witness to play the role that the judge is supposed to play, and will play, when it comes to instructing the jury immediately before they deliberate. Normally, a witness can't explain the law and how it's supposed to be interpreted, but, technically, he was only saying what he told the class when he explained the law and how it is to be interpreted. I think the Professor came across as a credible witness. Maybe it shouldn't be true, but the fact that he was a Black man had to help. He also used to work for the Public Defender's Office, so he is no NRA-type whacko.
The Professor also explained 'imperfect self-defense', which cover the 'he shouldn't have gotten out of the car' and 'Zimmerman started it' parts of this trial. The witness testified that even if Person A starts it, using some low level of force, Person B can respond with a similar level of force, BUT if Person B responds with a great deal of force, the kind that would put Person A in fear for his life or serious physical injury, then Person A can respond with deadly physical force. Person A didn't lose their right to 'self-defense'. The professor also said that Person A doesn't have to wait for Person B to 'almost kill him'. If Person A is in fear of his life, and thinks his life is in danger, then he can use deadly physical force. Again, I found that part of his testimony also worth being mentioned on the news.
Yes, the Professor showed that Zimmerman lied about something during the Hannity interview. That certainly is important, and a headline. But did you hear the other stuff he said? I think it's almost as important. Certainly worth being reported. We all want to know what was in Zimmerman and Trayvon's heads that night. What were they thinking? Well, this part of the Professor's testimony help answer an important part of that question.
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
Affirmative defenses almost always shift the burden of proof. They are for defendants to prove in order to escape liability despite committing the acts spelled out in statutory law. The prosecution has the burden of proof for the underlying defense, but typically not for an affirmative defense.
I just graduated from law school. This doesn't mean I am right about this jurisdiction and how they treat self-defense. There may be some jurisdictions where lack of justification is part of the prosecution's case but this seems fairly counter-intuitive.
As for using deadly force, the person asserting self-defense has to both believe he is required to use it and it has to be objectively reasonable. It can't just be his opinion but also that which a reasonable person in that situation would have.
The reason this area of the law is so confused is that each state may treat self-defense differently. As for murder there are model codes but each state is allowed to adopt it in their fashion. Further, each state has its own precedent from cases that help explain how the statutes have been interpreted when there were similar fact patterns.
The broad principles laid out in the article by starkem are useful. Imminence for instance. Is Zimmerman permitted to use deadly force prior to the point in time at which he faces a deadly threat? Anyone who is losing a fight is at the eventual mercy of their attacker if they have no duty to retreat. They just may anticipate the deadly threat before it's there.
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
Affirmative defenses almost always shift the burden of proof. They are for defendants to prove in order to escape liability despite committing the acts spelled out in statutory law. The prosecution has the burden of proof for the underlying defense, but typically not for an affirmative defense.
I just graduated from law school. This doesn't mean I am right about this jurisdiction and how they treat self-defense. There may be some jurisdictions where lack of justification is part of the prosecution's case but this seems fairly counter-intuitive.
As for using deadly force, the person asserting self-defense has to both believe he is required to use it and it has to be objectively reasonable. It can't just be his opinion but also that which a reasonable person in that situation would have.
The reason this area of the law is so confused is that each state may treat self-defense differently. As for murder there are model codes but each state is allowed to adopt it in their fashion. Further, each state has its own precedent from cases that help explain how the statutes have been interpreted when there were similar fact patterns.
The broad principles laid out in the article by starkem are useful. Imminence for instance. Is Zimmerman permitted to use deadly force prior to the point in time at which he faces a deadly threat? Anyone who is losing a fight is at the eventual mercy of their attacker if they have no duty to retreat. They just may anticipate the deadly threat before it's there.
Edit: I am not saying you are wrong about how self-defense is treated. It may not be treated as a typical affirmative defense (which results in burden shifting). Or it may only require a shift in the burden of producing evidence but without shifting the burden of persuasion. I'm guessing this last scenario is the case which would mean that lack of justification is part of the prosecutor's case as you say. It does put the prosecution in the position of having to prove a negative as part of their case.
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
broncofan
Affirmative defenses almost always shift the burden of proof. They are for defendants to prove in order to escape liability despite committing the acts spelled out in statutory law. The prosecution has the burden of proof for the underlying defense, but typically not for an affirmative defense.
I just graduated from law school. This doesn't mean I am right about this jurisdiction and how they treat self-defense. There may be some jurisdictions where lack of justification is part of the prosecution's case but this seems fairly counter-intuitive.
As for using deadly force, the person asserting self-defense has to both believe he is required to use it and it has to be objectively reasonable. It can't just be his opinion but also that which a reasonable person in that situation would have.
The reason this area of the law is so confused is that each state may treat self-defense differently. As for murder there are model codes but each state is allowed to adopt it in their fashion. Further, each state has its own precedent from cases that help explain how the statutes have been interpreted when there were similar fact patterns.
The broad principles laid out in the article by starkem are useful. Imminence for instance. Is Zimmerman permitted to use deadly force prior to the point in time at which he faces a deadly threat? Anyone who is losing a fight is at the eventual mercy of their attacker if they have no duty to retreat. They just may anticipate the deadly threat before it's there.
Self-defense varying from State to State matches up with what the Professor said about how he taught Florida-specific things in addition to the general information contained in the book.
I'll let the Professor speak for himself, by attaching a link. If you look on youtube, some people have been uploading each day's testimony, so you can look for him by name.
Here is a link to one of the local TV stations in Orlando doing what I think is a good job reporting that day's testimony. Doing a much, much better job than what I saw on the networks.
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/geo...z/-/index.html
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Queens Guy
Self-defense varying from State to State matches up with what the Professor said about how he taught Florida-specific things in addition to the general information contained in the book.
I'll let the Professor speak for himself, by attaching a link. If you look on youtube, some people have been uploading each day's testimony, so you can look for him by name.
Here is a link to one of the local TV stations in Orlando doing what I think is a good job reporting that day's testimony. Doing a much, much better job than what I saw on the networks.
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/geo...z/-/index.html
Thanks. I'll look into it!
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
Seems to me that defining self defense in this case does no good until there's a clear definition of assault.
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
did anyone see the dog that was shot repeatedly for 'sniffing an officers feet'!
Granted it was the owners fault for leaving the windows open but the officer shot repeatedly and didn't even kill it! left it lying in extreme pain!
-
Defense Motion to Acquit Zimmerman Denied
Defense Motion to Acquit Zimmerman Denied
Earlier: Trayvon Martin's mom testifies
(Newser) – Trayvon Martin's mother and brother took the stand today in George Zimmerman's trial, followed by the medical examiner who performed Martin's autopsy, and the prosecution rested its case around 5pm. The defense will now present its case; defense attorney Mark O'Mara started by asking the judge to acquit Zimmerman because there is no direct evidence that spite played a role in the killing. The judge denied the motion, CNN reports. Earlier, with the court playing a 911 tape from the night of the shooting, Sybrina and Jahvaris Fulton both identified the screams on the tape as belonging to Martin, the Orlando Sentinel reports. Among the details from today's testimony:
- Sybrina Fulton told the court that Martin had a pair of tattoos bearing the names of his great-grandmother, grandmother, and herself.
- O'Mara asked Sybrina if anyone had "prepared" her before she heard the recording; she said no.
- He also noted that "the only alternative" to Martin screaming was Zimmerman screaming, which would suggest the teen was responsible for his own death, he said; he asked whether she hoped her son wasn't at fault. "I would hope for this to never have happened," she said.
- Jahvaris acknowledged having initially told the media he wasn't certain who was screaming. "I didn't want to believe it was him," he said, per the San Jose Mercury News.
During his testimony, the medical examiner said Trayvon was alive for a while after being shot, "still in pain" and "suffering."
http://www.newser.com/story/170543/t...re-my-son.html
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
Did George Zimmerman LIE (A Lot!) Under Oath?
"In the spring of 2010, a military prosecutor with the Army taught a college class near here that delved into Florida's Stand Your Ground law. One of his pupils stood out for his diligence: George Zimmerman, who earned an A."*
George Zimmerman may have perjured himself in his trial. Did Trayvon Martin grab Zimmerman's gun like he said? Did Zimmerman not know about the "Stand Your Ground" laws taught in his law school class, which he aced? Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian discuss.
Did George Zimmerman LIE (A Lot!) Under Oath? - YouTube
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
these videos say very much about zimmerman
GEORGE ZIMMERMAN TRIAL OPENING STATEMENTS PROSECUTION
GEORGE ZIMMERMAN TRIAL OPENING STATEMENTS PROSECUTION 6.24.13 PT.4 - YouTube
motion to dismiss murder charge denied
WATCH: Prosecution Argues Against Acquittal - Zimmerman Din't Act Out of Self-Defense
Prosecution rests in Zimmerman trial; defense asks for acquittal
SANFORD, Fla. (AP) — The prosecution in the murder trial of George Zimmerman wrapped up its case after a dramatic day of testimony Friday, with Travyon Martin's mother and brother saying the screams for help that can be heard in the background on a 911 call came from the 17-year-old.
WATCH: Prosecution Argues Against Acquittal - Zimmerman Din't Act Out of Self-Defense - YouTube
-
Re: 17yr old black kid shot and killed for walking in white suburbia?
Crowd On MSNBC Cheers As Motion To Dismiss Charges Against George Zimmerman DENIED!
On Friday, the state of Florida wrapped up its presentation of the case against George Zimmerman for the 2012 murder of Trayvon Martin. Following the state resting, Zimmerman's counselors argued a motion before the judge to acquit Zimmerman due to a lack of evidence. What that motion was dismissed by the presiding judge, a crowd attending the Essence Festival in New Orleans where MSNBC is broadcasting live burst into cheers and applause.
Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, concluded his request for an acquittal by noting that Martin "did cause his own death." The judge summarily dismissed O'Mara's motion and proceeded to instruct him to begin the defense phase of the trial by calling their first witness.
The crowd at the Essence Festival that had been watching the proceedings as MSNBC's hosts broadcast live from that event exploded in cheers upon hearing the news that Zimmerman will not be acquitted without a jury passing a verdict of "not guilty."
Watch the clip below via MSNBC:
Crowd On MSNBC Cheers As Motion To Dismiss Charges Against Zimmerman Denied - YouTube
