Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
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?