Trayvon Martin Case

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

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

Again - here are Florida's pattern jury instructions:



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

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

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

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


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


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

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

QJvAwt14vSM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your bias showing, nothing more.

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

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

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

<facepalm>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

QJvAwt14vSM

None of what you said addresses:

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

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

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

Can't get the youtube at work.

None of what you said addresses:

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

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

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

Can't get the youtube at work.

1. Again, I am saying that if the defendant is claiming self-defense then burden is on him to create doubt by providing evidence to the contrary. Nothing Zimmerman's defense team has shown places doubt as two who initiated the attack only that Zimmerman sustained non-threatening injuries while Martin sustained a gun shot to the heart. You seem to think this is a win for the defense and I do not. All he has to show is a few buries and conflicting witness statement neither of which necessary refuted a larger body of circumstantial evidence.

2. All Zimmerman so far is say "i have scars on my head" and I don't believe that to be sufficient to create doubt. Even if the scars life threatening there isn't sufficient evidence who attacked who first. As for Goods, he isn't credible and I wouldn't place much value in his testimony (http://www.ibtimes.com/george-zimmerman-trial-jonathan-good-testifies-trayvon-martin-was-top-zimmerman-during-fight-1327855#):

Jonathan Good, the witness, testified in a Florida courtroom Friday that he could not see whether Trayvon was punching Zimmerman during the fight, contradicting earlier police statements he made.


I will ask you again, what is Affirmative Defense?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt.

(1) To me, without something, circumstantial or otherwise, that GZ started the fight, I don't see how anyone can say there is no reasonable doubt on this issue.

(2) Okay, he got out of his truck and followed TM when he shouldn't have then .... what? TM pops him first? He pops TM first? WTF happened??

(3) You're quoting prosecutor's medical expert who never examined GZ but just photos after the fact - not the EMT - on the striking concrete issue. The neutral on site EMT said very, very clearly that someone exibiting Martin's injuries would "probably" be concerned for their medical well being and could very reasonably be concerned with suffering brain or concussive injuries if they were on their back. Does the fact that you were relying on the prosecution's "whore" and not the neutral EMT affect you're conclusion?

So you completely dismiss Good's testimony as creating any reasonable doubt on the issue fo GZ's state of mind? What about the fact he heard him screaming for help? No doubt created by that?


On the jury issue, I agree. Despite my firm belief that the State has failed miserably in meetings its legal burden, I will accept what the jury decides and have no doubt enough was presented to have six people find a manslaughter charge on this issue.

If you're 'soft' and take a pop to the head who's to say that you don't immediately fear for your life?

1. Again, I am saying that if the defendant is claiming self-defense then burden is on him to create doubt by providing evidence to the contrary. Nothing Zimmerman's defense team has shown places doubt as two who initiated the attack only that Zimmerman sustained non-threatening injuries while Martin sustained a gun shot to the heart. You seem to think this is a win for the defense and I do not. All he has to show is a few buries and conflicting witness statement neither of which necessary refuted a larger body of circumstantial evidence.

2. All Zimmerman so far is say "i have scars on my head" and I don't believe that to be sufficient to create doubt. Even if the scars life threatening there isn't sufficient evidence that who attacked who. As for Goods, he isn't credible and I wouldn't place much value in his testimony (http://www.ibtimes.com/george-zimmerman-trial-jonathan-good-testifies-trayvon-martin-was-top-zimmerman-during-fight-1327855#)

I will ask you again, what is Affirmative Defense?


(1) Your just f'ing wrong on how you are applying the law. It is not his "burden to create doubt". Read the F'ing case law OMT googled and the jury instructions and tell me how your assertion is consistent with them.

(2) So you entireely discount the EMT's assertion that a person exhibiting GZ's injuries would probably be in fear for their medical safety and concerned about concussive or brain injuries. Doesn't cause you the tiniest bit of doubt. Good isn't credible?? The one guy who had a close up view of the altercation as it was occuring? And his testimony that GZ was screaming for help is just flluff?

Affirmative defense is a defense raised by the defending party.

In a civil matter, to gain the benefit of the affirmative defense, the defendant raising it must prove all its elements by a preponderance of the evidence. If he does so, plaintiff must then rebut the defense by disproving one or more elements by a preponderance of the evidence or his claim will fail.

In a criminal matter, whether raised by the defendant or fairly generated by the State's evidence, once a prima facie case has been made (i.e. viewing the facts in evidence, and any reasonable inferences drawn from them, in a light most favorable to the defendant, they create the possibilty of a jury question), the burden is then upon the state to eliminate all reasonable doubt as to one or more of the elements of the affirmative defense. If they fail to do so, a verdict of not guilty is required.

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

^^ after 2 seconds on google i found a 2012 florida appellate opinion (appears to be unreported) ... falwell v state, 5D10-2011Hey, OTM. Enjoyed reading your posts, as well as JoeR and RR's in this thread, even though you and I apparently disagree.

One thing surprised me about your posts was how you seem to take the above statement. That self defense must be supported by reasonable evidence by the defense (prima facie - at first glance, plausible, reasonable on the face of it), and that it's then the prosecution's burden to disprove it.

Reading your posts, I thought initially that you were agreeing with RR about Zimmerman's defense have established prima facie self defense, that it was now up to the prosecution to provide a case more than a reasonable doubt. But I get the impression that you don't think Z's defense has met that burden.

Why isn't Martin being on top of Zimmerman pummeling him, with Zimmerman sustaining the only injuries in the fisticuff part of the fight (broken nose, black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury) enough to establish "prima facie" self defense?

I mean, it's important in this trial to try figuring out the details, like who started the fight, was it reasonable for Zimmerman to fear for his life, etc. But just to establish a reasonable first glance self defense... Geez does someone have to have their skull already split open before they can make a possible claim of self defense, in your opinion?

While I don't know how the known details should be weighed, I hope the jury is taught how to in this case, in the final verdict. (I personally think so far the murder count is a joke, manslaughter in this or a civil trial might be right though I doubt it, and the burden of proof is very much on the prosecution in this case.)

Maybe some people are confusing ordinary self-defense claims with stand-your-ground. Stand-your-ground appears to me, to offer protection to people AFTER it's proven they were justified in using lethal force, to prevent revenge minded people from suing the person into bankruptcy after they were found innocent by self defense. That's why SYG is an affirmative defense, the defendant has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt self defense was justified, to get the protection against lawsuits SYG offers.

The traditional "self defense" claim is not the same as SYG. As long as it's plausible the defendant could have used self-defense, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution. Like practically ALL crimes, the defendant is presumed innocent until guilty, as they should be. (At least one exception, if the IRS comes after you) Zimmerman isn't claiming SYG, he's claiming traditional self defense.

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.