Trayvon Martin Case

Trayvon Martin Case: Exclusive Surveillance Video of George Zimmerman - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/trayvon-martin-case-exclusive-surveillance-video-george-zimmerman/story?id=16022897)

Its tough to make out the face even though it doesnt look hurt, but because of a pretty recent hair cut the back of the head is pretty clear, no injury what so ever.

You would expect to see some type of first aid administered to the head from the description of his supposed wounds.

Im just not buying what this guy is selling, think he's lying and this supposed attack wasnt much of anything but trying to CYA tall tale after-the-fact

Been thinking over the Florida immunity law (the one saying, if you assert self-defense, you can't be arrested without proof that the "self-defense" defense is inapplicable) and why I find it morally bothersome. It appears to change the claim of "self-defense" from an affirmative defense to a presumptive defense and, in doing so, lessens the value of life.

As an affirmative defense, "self-defense" is something I have to prove in order to be innocent of murder. If I fail to prove my actions satisfied the elements of self-defense, my defense fails and I may be liable for first or second degree murder. As such, I better be damn sure of myself before resorting to deadly force in self-defense. Simply put, as an affirmative defense, the philosophical underpinning of the "self-defense" claim is that, if you kill someone, the presumption is you are wrong to do so.

The presumption that it is wrong to kill someone is eliminated, however, when the claim of "self-defense" is converted into a presumptive defense as it appears to be in Florida. As a presumptive defense, I don't need to prove I acted in self-defense, I just need to assert that I was doing so. Once asserted, it becomes the State's burden to find enough evidence to prove I that I was not acting in self-defense. As such, when (like here) the evidence is just too conflicting to say one way or another with any reasonable degree of certainty, the State will almost always fail to overcome the presumption. As a result, the possibility that a person wrongly lost their life will never even make it to a jury.

Essentially, as a presumptive defense, the philosophical underpinning of the "self-defense" claim is that killing someone is not assumed to be wrong. Rather, Floridians have said that the right to defend your person is primary even if sometimes innocent people get killed. I am pretty sure I have a problem with that.

Quick primer on the degrees of murder - First degree murder is traditional murder - felony murder & pre-meditated murder. Second degree murder is simply Murder 1 with an imperfect defense (such as asserting self defense with deadly force when you had no right to use it) or, alternatively, death caused by gross negligence and reckless disregard for others (think firing a gun into a crowded room - you may not have intended to kill anyone, but you damn well should have known you were likely to do so). Manslaughter is simply the negligent/accidental killing of another.

Generally, the distingushing feature between second degree murder and manslaughter is that, in Murder 2, you admit to the intentional killing of another but wrongly assert you had the right to do so. In manslaughter, however, you deny that you intended to kill the person and assert it was an accident. In this case, Zimmerman has said "I killed him in self-defense." Meaning that he intended to kill Martin and that the death was not accidental. As a result, it would appear to me that the State is stuck with 2nd degree murder or nothing.

Its tough to make out the face even though it doesnt look hurt, but because of a pretty recent hair cut the back of the head is pretty clear, no injury what so ever.

You would expect to see some type of first aid administered to the head from the description of his supposed wounds.

Im just not buying what this guy is selling, think he's lying and this supposed attack wasnt much of anything but trying to CYA tall tale after-the-fact

Is the homeowner who witnessed Martin beating Zimmerman also lying?

Is the homeowner who witnessed Martin beating Zimmerman also lying?

Could've mixed the 2 up? How far was the homeowner from the incident? Was it practically on their doorstep or were they like 5 or 6 houses down? Could make a significant difference and mistaken identity. Around 7pm and raining, so it was probably somewhat dark.

Possibly? I'm sure odder witness mistakes have happened...

As I understand it, the fight was on his front yard and he was very clear that guy A was on top of and beating guy B. He looked away/went for phone, heard a gunshot and then saw "the guy who had been on top" lying on the ground.

A man who witnessed part of the altercation contacted authorities.

"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.

John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.

"And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."
Trayvon Martin shot and killed in neighborhood altercation (http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation#ixzz1qTTeApQJ)

The witness only wanted to be identified as "John," and didn't not want to be shown on camera.

His statements to police were instrumental, because police backed up Zimmerman's claims, saying those screams on the 911 call are those of Zimmerman.

Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman (http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012)

Sounds like he was pretty sure of what he saw and was close enough to speak to the two while they were fighting.

Is the homeowner who witnessed Martin beating Zimmerman also lying?

In your line of work, whats more important physical evidence vs. witness statement? I think the physical evidence. Lets be honest, that video evidence directly after the fight shows no signs of a fight. No bruising or blood to the face, back of the head, no ripped clothing, doesnt look physically exhasted, etc. A broken nose or gash to the back of the head should be noticable.

Im calling bullsh*t on Zimmy. Going to ground and rolling around is alot different from some a child on top of a grown medium to large man physically beating him. Alot different.

I'll have to say I keep going back and forth on this as new stuff comes out. The past few days it seemed Zim acted in self defense and now after seeing the video I question that. I do wonder about the witness and what they said they saw. I know in my business the out side witness hold more ground then the the people involved.

I'll have to say I keep going back and forth on this as new stuff comes out. The past few days it seemed Zim acted in self defense and now after seeing the video I question that. I do wonder about the witness and what they said they saw. I know in my business the out side witness hold more ground then the the people involved.

Yeah I agree. I was against Zimmerman at first, then I thought Zimmerman had a good case, and now there's video that could possibly prove Zimmerman was lying. I haven't seen the video but if it's true and he didn't suffer any injuries than I don't know what to believe. I'm just going to wait until all the facts come out.

In your line of work, whats more important physical evidence vs. witness statement? I think the physical evidence. Lets be honest, that video evidence directly after the fight shows no signs of a fight. No bruising or blood to the face, back of the head, no ripped clothing, doesnt look physically exhasted, etc. A broken nose or gash to the back of the head should be noticable.

Im calling bullsh*t on Zimmy. Going to ground and rolling around is alot different from some a child on top of a grown medium to large man physically beating him. Alot different.

Depends on a lot of factors. How reliable is the physical evidence, how reliable is the witness statement. I have more than once seen juries side with the eyewitness account of something rather than video evidence.

It's clear you have made up your mind in this matter and, barring incontrovertable evidence that Martin was laying in wait and attacking Zimmerman from behind, you won't even consider the possibility that Martin may have been the aggressor or the person who escalated the confrontation into a physical altercation. I get it - Martin is a "child", Zimmerman is a coward with a gun so he MUST be guilty of murder. Couldn't happen any other way.