Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
I swear, I am going to start yelling again.
"Prove might have been the wrong word"? YES. IT WAS. In fact, it is a blatantly wrong word. It is in every way incorrect and inapplicable in every sense to the State's case against GZ. "Show"??? Way to try and pull your sh** from the fire and still burn your hand. It's not a question of degree. Zimmerman does not need to "show" anything at this point.
BY THE STATE'S ADMISSION, self defense is at issue in this matter and the State bears the burden of persuasion to demonstrate the claim invalid. Self-defense is not an "extraordinary claim"?? What the f*** does that mean? Self-defense is a common defense in any crime alleging physical harm to another. IT IS A F***ING ELEMENT OF THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM!
With nothing more from GZ, and based on the indictment, the burden is entirely on the State to show - BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT - that one of the five elements of self-defense is invalid. [Did you read the jury instruction saying that the burden of persuasion never switches, it is always on the State?]
But ... if you insist ... let’s look at the law and the evidence and ask “Has the State proved any one of these elements to be invalid beyond a reasonable doubt?" [NOTE: If the State does do so, then, and only then, would GZ need to submit rebuttal evidence to, as you say "prove reasonable doubt". Before GZ need do anything, however, the State must eliminate all reasonable doubt from one or more of the elements].
Preliminarily, the State has alleged GZ inappropriately exercised his right to self-defense and, thus, is guilty of murder2 with its incorporated charge of manslaughter. Based on the evidence presented to date, what possible reasonable doubts could exist as to GZ's use of deadly force in self-defense? First, let's take a look at the elements of self-defense. Per your article, the elements of self-defense are:
(1) Innocence: You cannot initiate a physical confrontation and then claim you are acting in self-defense (unless your opponents actions allow you to “regain your innocence”).
(2) Imminence: Self defense, the right to use violence is only acceptable when threatened with imminent physical harm.
(3) Proportionality: In exercising your right of self-defense, you may only use force proportional to that being used against you.
(4) Avoidance: Before invoking your right to self-defense, you must retreat if a safe route of retreat exists.
(5) Reasonableness: Your perceptions and conduct in self-defense were those of a reasonable and prudent person under the same or similar circumstances.
So, there are the elements. Does the admitted evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) show any one of them to be conclusively – i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt - invalid?
Innocence: To my knowledge the only evidence that could even be interpreted as GZ initiating the physical confrontation is Jeantel’s testimony that she heard Martin say “Get off … Get off” coupled with the facts that GZ was following TM and verbally confronted TM. In contrast, the prosecutor has also introduce evidence showing that GZ has consistently indicated that Martin struck first. This is at, best, a “he said/she said” situation where two people give differing versions of how the fight was initiated and both versions were introduced by the State! I think reasonable doubt abounds as to who was the individual that turned an angry verbal confrontation into a physical confrontation.
Imminence: For this case, as I see it, imminence and innocence are practically one and the same. The prosecution, again, introduced evidence that Martin approached GZ, struck GZ and continued the fight unabated. The State also introduced evidence exists to demonstrate that GZ’s stated estimates of the timing is off (through comparison of the timing on his calls versus Jeantel’s). However, the fight and its lead are, for all intents and purposes, unobserved. As such, there is no evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) to conclusively show how the physical confrontation was initiated and its course through the first 30 seconds or so. Given the admitted evidence, it may have happened the way the State asserts, it may have happened as described by GZ's admitted statements or it may have happend in entirely different manner. No evidence submitted, that I am aware of, absolutely precludes either the State's, GZ's or some other version of the nights events. As such, reasonable doubt abounds.
Proportionality: This, of course, is the crux of the matter. Has the State shown beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ use of deadly force was not-proportional to the force being used against him. As I said in prior posts, if this was GZ’s burden to prove, my analysis would be different. However, it is not his burden. It is the State’s burden to eliminate all reasonable doubts as to the reasonableness of GZ's asserted fear. From your article:
Even removing the argumentative phrases regarding "unremitting nature", "clearly no longer a threat" and "the extensiveness of", in light of the above facts --all of which have been admitted into evidence -- and any reasonable inferences drawn from them, show me evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that no person in GZ’s position would be in fear for his life. Particularly in light of the additional evidence from the defense that GZ was “soft” and physically inept in a fight.
[There is fundamental legal principle called the “fragile egg defendant” – if I unjustifiable strike someone with minimal force and break his leg b/c he is particularly fragile for some reason unknown to me, I lose even if the force with which I struck him would not harm the average person in any way and I had no way of knowing my strike would cause extensive harm**. Similarly, here, if the jury deems the evidence that GZ was physically inept to be credible, then the reasonableness of GZ’s actions must be judged from the perspective of a physically inept person.
**In the case that articulated this principle, Kid A inadvertently taps Kid B in the knee while they are both on swings and Kid B's knee, literally, shatters on contact.]
Avoidance: Again, is there any evidence to demonstrate that once the fight began GZ had an opportunity to retreat. Has the State provided evidence to demonstrate – beyond a reasonable doubt - that GZ could have escaped the alleged assault by Martin? I see no evidence precluding a conclusion that, once the fight began, GZ was unable to escape and avoid. Prior to the fight, see the evidence relating to innocence and imminence.
Reasonableness: Although this is applicable to all the above elements, given the lack of anything but speculation as to how this fight began or continued, this really goes to GZ’s use of deadly force and the evidence and arguments are the same as above. Again, and I have said before - while I am not certain GZ has proved his fear was reasonable, I am certain that the State has not shown that, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was.
Go ahead saden1, show me the evidence rebutting any one of these elements beyond any reasonable doubt. I guarantee you cannot do so without relying on your own speculative conclusions as to GZ’s motivations and/or state of mind or filling in a lot of blanks with assumptions as to how each acted that night.
|