Trayvon Martin Case

[Gary84Clark]

I think it is reasonable to say Trayvon feared for his life when Z approached him. That would justify him beating Z up, if that happened? They have a video where the police are with Z in his interview, its on abcnews.com. They tell Z if you had identified yourself to this child then we would not be here.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

That would justify him beating Z up, if that happened?

In what manner? To ask for directions? To ask him his name and his intentions? To tell him to go back where came from? To tell him he had a gun and was going to shoot him? To call him a n**** and make him cry? Give us, oh knower of all things, the exact situation. Not a general happenstance.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

I think it is reasonable to say Trayvon feared for his life when Z approached him. That would justify him beating Z up, if that happened? They have a video where the police are with Z in his interview, its on abcnews.com. They tell Z if you had identified yourself to this child then we would not be here.

Wow. Just wow. You're either a hypocrite or a f***'ing barbarian.

First, show me the law that says Z had to identify himself. Regarldless of whether he "should have", show me the law requiring him to do so. Hindsight is 20/20.

TM justifiably feared for his life? Really?? Show me where ANYWHERE in the conversation with Jeanette that TM evidenced a fear of his life or even imminent physical harm.

BUT ... accepting your premise arguendo -- following and verbally confronting TM legitimately put TM in fear for his life but TM having Z pinned to the ground and inflicting the injuries evidenced by TM did not put Z in reasonable fear of his own.

Don't look now, you're double standard is showing.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

First, show me the law that says Z had to identify himself. Regarldless of whether he "should have", show me the law requiring him to do so. Hindsight is 20/20.

TM justifiably feared for his life? Really?? Show me where ANYWHERE in the conversation with Jeanette that TM evidenced a fear of his life or even imminent physical harm.

.

i think only a detective or consultant said he should have identified himself and this wouldnt have happened. im guessing that is where this notion came from.

TM would not have to be in fear of death to justify using non-lethal self defense. He would only have to be in fear of bodily harm. having an adult follow you and corner you would put a person in reas fear that the person following you wanted to fight.

to justify lethal self-defense on an unarmed combatant is just not acceptable to me in this situation. maybe if its chuck norris on an 80 yr old, but not a 29 yr old and a person who just turned 17.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

i think only a detective or consultant said he should have identified himself and this wouldnt have happened. im guessing that is where this notion came from.

TM would not have to be in fear of death to justify using non-lethal self defense. He would only have to be in fear of bodily harm. having an adult follow you and corner you would put a person in reas fear that the person following you wanted to fight.

to justify lethal self-defense on an unarmed combatant is just not acceptable to me in this situation. maybe if its chuck norris on an 80 yr old, but not a 29 yr old and a person who just turned 17.

If you're getting your ass beat and fear for your life...forget how you got there because it is irrelevant to your decision making at that point...then shooting someone who is unarmed is definitely in play. I know I would. A gun is reasonably equal force to "Oh no this guy is going to kill me with his bare hands". The real question as to this part of the trial is whether Z had real and reasonable cause to fear for his life. JR where does the burden stand on this type of issue. Does Z have to prove he was reasonably in fear or does the prosecution have to prove he wasn't?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

JR where does the burden stand on this type of issue. Does Z have to prove he was reasonably in fear or does the prosecution have to prove he wasn't?

Self-defence is an affirmative defense meaning that the burden is initially on Z to assert but, once asserted and a prima facia case made, it is up to the State to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, Z doesn't need to testify or put on any evidence of the issue, Z need only claim that the evidence presented by the prosecution "fairly generates" the issue of self defense.

Maryland law on the issue:
A jury instruction improperly placed the burden of persuasion on the issue of self defense upon defendant because self-defense was fairly generated by the evidence and the burden was upon the State to negate self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

A More Detailed Statement:
The burden of initially producing "some evidence" on the issue of mitigation or self-defense (or of relying upon evidence produced by the State) sufficient to give rise to a jury issue with respect to these defenses, is properly cast upon the defendant. Once the issue has been generated by the evidence, however, the State must carry the ultimate burden of persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt on that issue. ... [T]he Court recognized that many states do require the defendant to make a threshold showing that there is "some evidence" indicating that the defendant acted in the heat of passion before the prosecution is required to negate this element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, the prosecution need not in the first instance introduce evidence of facts which negate the existence of mitigating circumstances or of self-defense; and if the defendant adduces no evidence of these matters, no issue of their existence is raised in the case and no jury instructions regarding mitigating circumstances or self-defense need be given. [emphasis mine]

Florida law is probably very similar and I would suggest that "the issue [of self-defense] has been generated by the [prosecution's] evidence". Thus, at this point, it is the State's burden to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Z's subjective belief was unreasonable. Again, I just don't see that.

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Self-defence is an affirmative defense meaning that the burden is initially on Z to assert but, once asserted and a prima facia case made, it is up to the State to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, Z doesn't need to testify or put on any evidence of the issue, Z need only claim that the evidence presented by the prosecution "fairly generates" the issue of self defense.

Maryland law on the issue:
A jury instruction improperly placed the burden of persuasion on the issue of self defense upon defendant because self-defense was fairly generated by the evidence and the burden was upon the State to negate self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

A More Detailed Statement:
The burden of initially producing "some evidence" on the issue of mitigation or self-defense (or of relying upon evidence produced by the State) sufficient to give rise to a jury issue with respect to these defenses, is properly cast upon the defendant. Once the issue has been generated by the evidence, however, the State must carry the ultimate burden of persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt on that issue. ... [T]he Court recognized that many states do require the defendant to make a threshold showing that there is "some evidence" indicating that the defendant acted in the heat of passion before the prosecution is required to negate this element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, the prosecution need not in the first instance introduce evidence of facts which negate the existence of mitigating circumstances or of self-defense; and if the defendant adduces no evidence of these matters, no issue of their existence is raised in the case and no jury instructions regarding mitigating circumstances or self-defense need be given. [emphasis mine]

Florida law is probably very similar and I would suggest that "the issue [of self-defense] has been generated by the [prosecution's] evidence". Thus, at this point, it is the State's burden to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Z's subjective belief was unreasonable. Again, I just don't see that.

Let's imagine a video camera, it records Joe Redskin and Redskins Rat going into a hotel room. Joe comes out but Rat never reemerges on the video feed. Rat's body is found later in the room. Joe says it self defense. No one can prove it was not self defense. Joe goes free?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

Let's imagine a video camera, it records Joe Redskin and Redskins Rat going into a hotel room. Joe comes out but Rat never reemerges on the video feed. Rat's body is found later in the room. Joe says it self defense. No one can prove it was not self defense. Joe goes free?

If those are the facts, all the facts, and, at the trial, the prosecution introduces my statements to them where I claim self-defense and they have nothing to contradict it. I go free. I don't even have to testify under oath.

It's the State's burden to prove my guilt, not mine to prove my innocence. Hopefully, it will remain that way as long as I live and beyond.

Besides, I have a feeling the only Rat and I would kill is a bottle of Jack while we called each other names and argued about the existence of the dragon in the garage.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

Let's imagine a video camera, it records Joe Redskin and Redskins Rat going into a hotel room. <SNIP>

Hey! Hey! Hey! WTF am I even doing agreeing to go to a hotel with a lawyer!

A drug ravaged, disease-ridden hooker, possibly.....but a lawyer?


I have some standards, damn it!

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Wow. Just wow. You're either a hypocrite or a f***'ing barbarian.

First, show me the law that says Z had to identify himself. Regarldless of whether he "should have", show me the law requiring him to do so. Hindsight is 20/20.

TM justifiably feared for his life? Really?? Show me where ANYWHERE in the conversation with Jeanette that TM evidenced a fear of his life or even imminent physical harm.

BUT ... accepting your premise arguendo -- following and verbally confronting TM legitimately put TM in fear for his life but TM having Z pinned to the ground and inflicting the injuries evidenced by TM did not put Z in reasonable fear of his own.

Don't look now, you're double standard is showing.

Calling me a barbarian is not gonna prove your point. I am making the same argument you are making. If it is resonablee to shoot someone because you feared for your life, then it is resaonable to punch someon if you fear for your life. A strange man approaching you with a gun is life threatening. See, Joe I think you may have a double standard going here. What applies to Martin equally applies to Z.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

Calling me a barbarian is not gonna prove your point. I am making the same argument you are making. If it is resonablee to shoot someone because you feared for your life, then it is resaonable to punch someon if you fear for your life. A strange man approaching you with a gun is life threatening. See, Joe I think you may have a double standard going here. What applies to Martin equally applies to Z.

Fine, but Z is charged with the crime and the State has to prove all the requisite elements of the crime they allege he committed. It's not enough to say TM was not guilty the State has to demonstrate, with evidence, that Z is guilty.

In your outline above, because the evidence generated to date indicates a claim for self-defence, the allegation that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that all TM did was "punch someone".