Trayvon Martin Case

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

so if T woulda shot Zim in this outcome...? innocent.

Or in both instances, just because Zim apparently was getting his ass handed to him by a kid by a confrontation initiated by Zim, is T guilty?

What do you mean "this outcome"? If the only fact you change is that T shoots Z, you still have much of the speculative issues presented. T claims he was in fear of his life but testimony places him on top of Z in "ground and pound" mode with Z yelling for help. Next thing we know, Z is dead. (assume also the other witnesses come out and say they see TM get off the ground with a prone Z next to him).

I think the case against TM would be stronger especially since his body showed no evidence of injury. But, essentially, and assuming TM asserts self-defense, you would have much the same issues - speculation as to who started the fight and what happened during it. Certainly, the underlying principles - burden of proof, legal elements of the crime charged and innocent until proven guilty would be applicable to TM just as they now apply to Z.

And to be clear - "a confrontation initiated by Z" is a generalization that encompasses both legal and illegal acts in this situation. Z can initiate a verbal confrontation. TM can initiate a verbal confrontation. NEITHER can initiate a physical confrontation.

People can yell at you and aggressively taunt you in public. They can call you dirty names. They can call you the N word. They can call you a crazy cracker. They can insult your parents, sister and kids. They can make general threats of harm so long as they do so from a position where they can't reasonably be expected to carry out the threat (Shouting "I'm gonna kick your ass" from 10 feet away). They can stay at more than arms length and "flinch" as if to strike you. ...

You know what you (be you a teen, child or adult) can do in these situations? Yell back, call the cops or simply ignore it. [If they make a threat and then move to carry it out - that's different e.g. saying they are going to kick your ass and then charging you. While you would still have a duty to retreat (in MD) - you only need do so if you believe you can reasonably get to a safe place]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

I think regardless of technical details, Zim should be punished by jailtime because this situation was started by him.

Those "technical details" are, again, what I like to refer to as "law" and "burden of proof".

Z, through his actions, initiated the "situation" of a verbal confrontation - there is no evidence as to who started the "situation" of a physical confrontation. Leading up to the physical confontation, Z - IMHO - clearly exercised bad judgment. Bad judgment, however, is not a crime. Initiating a physical attack is - and that "situation" may have been "started" by Z or TM.

Before sending Z to jail, the State bears the burden of proof and persuasion to show BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that Z committed all the elements of the crime for which he is accused.

Originally Posted by Chico23231

To say Zim holds some type of authority to walk around his neighborhood with a gun, harrassing children or anybody is just about as foolish a thing ive ever heard of. His actions and reasoning is idoitic to the nth degree.

Who has alleged he has authority to harass anyone?? True, much as you don't like it, Z was legally authorized to carry a concealed weapon in public spaces. Assuming Z was harassing folks, however, if that harrasment was limited to following people and verbally confronting them, the appropriate response is to CALL THE F'ING POLICE. YOU DO NOT get to take matters into your own hands.

DAMN - why is this such a hard concept for folks to comprehend. Had TM said to his friend, "I'll call you back, I gotta call the police some crazy cracker is followng me." Maybe, just maybe, it would have been straightened out quickly. Instead, we get macho wannabe crime stopper versus macho wannabe teen and a tragic outcome with nothing but speculation on the key elements of legal responsibilty.

I gotta say, the willingness and ease with which some of you think violence is a proper response to being challenged, "harrased" or otherwise inconvenienced is disconcerting. Why does violence exist? B/c people still fundamentally believe it is the right way to resolve personal problems.

Originally Posted by Chico23231

It sounds like Zim finally got the ass kicking he rightfully deserved and when he couldnt handle it, he shot a child.

I dont seriously think his life was ever in danger. He's lying because thats his "out." He's a coward and a liar.

Well, screw the trial then - the line for pitchforks and torches starts behind G84C.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

What do you mean "this outcome"? If the only fact you change is that T shoots Z, you still have much of the speculative issues presented. T claims he was in fear of his life but testimony places him on top of Z in "ground and pound" mode with Z yelling for help. Next thing we know, Z is dead. (assume also the other witnesses come out and say they see TM get off the ground with a prone Z next to him).

I think the case against TM would be stronger especially since his body showed no evidence of injury. But, essentially, and assuming TM asserts self-defense, you would have much the same issues - speculation as to who started the fight and what happened during it. Certainly, the underlying principles - burden of proof, legal elements of the crime charged and innocent until proven guilty would be applicable to TM just as they now apply to Z.

And to be clear - "a confrontation initiated by Z" is a generalization that encompasses both legal and illegal acts in this situation. Z can initiate a verbal confrontation. TM can initiate a verbal confrontation. NEITHER can initiate a physical confrontation.

People can yell at you and aggressively taunt you in public. They can call you dirty names. They can call you the N word. They can call you a crazy cracker. They can insult your parents, sister and kids. They can make general threats of harm so long as they do so from a position where they can't reasonably be expected to carry out the threat (Shouting "I'm gonna kick your ass" from 10 feet away). They can stay at more than arms length and "flinch" as if to strike you. ...

You know what you (be you a teen, child or adult) can do in these situations? Yell back, call the cops or simply ignore it. [If they make a threat and then move to carry it out - that's different e.g. saying they are going to kick your ass and then charging you. While you would still have a duty to retreat (in MD) - you only need do so if you believe you can reasonably get to a safe place]



Those "technical details" are, again, what I like to refer to as "law" and "burden of proof".

Z, through his actions, initiated the "situation" of a verbal confrontation - there is no evidence as to who started the "situation" of a physical confrontation. Leading up to the physical confontation, Z - IMHO - clearly exercised bad judgment. Bad judgment, however, is not a crime. Initiating a physical attack is - and that "situation" may have been "started" by Z or TM.

Before sending Z to jail, the State bears the burden of proof and persuasion to show BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that Z committed all the elements of the crime for which he is accused.



Who has alleged he has authority to harass anyone?? True, much as you don't like it, Z was legally authorized to carry a concealed weapon in public spaces. Assuming Z was harassing folks, however, if that harrasment was limited to following people and verbally confronting them, the appropriate response is to CALL THE F'ING POLICE. YOU DO NOT get to take matters into your own hands.

DAMN - why is this such a hard concept for folks to comprehend. Had TM said to his friend, "I'll call you back, I gotta call the police some crazy cracker is followng me." Maybe, just maybe, it would have been straightened out quickly. Instead, we get macho wannabe crime stopper versus macho wannabe teen and a tragic outcome with nothing but speculation on the key elements of legal responsibilty.

I gotta say, the willingness and ease with which some of you think violence is a proper response to being challenged, "harrased" or otherwise inconvenienced is disconcerting. Why does violence exist? B/c people still fundamentally believe it is the right way to resolve personal problems.



Well, screw the trial then - the line for pitchforks and torches starts behind G84C.

Joe first I appreciate you explaining everything with your expertise. seriously I do and glad your here to navigate this situation.

Second, Im not advocating violence to solve a thing. not a thing. But you know a macho guy walking around seeking out a confronation while armed is not a good thing. Throw an immature kid into the mix, its down right dangerous. Im more appauled some people think its a good idea for Zim to behaving like this.

Lastly, you know, as well as I, people lie all day in court. Ive personally seen a police officer lie under oath. witnessed it. Ive seen guilty people lie all day in court to save their butts. If Zim could take it back, im sure he would. He's using "my life in danger" as a defense only now because he's life is truely in danger from incarseration. The reason to pull that weapon was petty. And he killed a normal teenager. not a thug, a kid who he got in a skirmish with. He should have never drawn that weapon. Its appauling to me people handle a fist fight with a weapon.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Joe first I appreciate you explaining everything with your expertise. seriously I do and glad your here to navigate this situation.

Second, Im not advocating violence to solve a thing. not a thing. But you know a macho guy walking around seeking out a confronation while armed is not a good thing. Throw an immature kid into the mix, its down right dangerous. Im more appauled some people think its a good idea for Zim to behaving like this.

Lastly, you know, as well as I, people lie all day in court. Ive personally seen a police officer lie under oath. witnessed it. Ive seen guilty people lie all day in court to save their butts. If Zim could take it back, im sure he would. He's using "my life in danger" as a defense only now because he's life is truely in danger from incarseration. The reason to pull that weapon was petty. And he killed a normal teenager. not a thug, a kid who he got in a skirmish with. He should have never drawn that weapon. Its appauling to me people handle a fist fight with a weapon.

How do you know he was seeking out a confrontation. His prior calls to the police the hold them he did not want to get involved personally.

In one of the calls, made on February 2, 2012, about three weeks before Martin's death, Zimmerman told the dispatcher he saw a black man walking around a neighbor's home. He said he also had seen this man walking around the neighborhood on trash days.
"I don't know what he's doing, I don't want to approach him, personally," said Zimmerman on the recording.

In another call made in October 2011, Zimmerman reported two "suspicious characters" who were "just hanging out, loitering" in his neighborhood. When the dispatcher asked if he can still see the suspects, Zimmerman said no because he "didn't want to attract attention" to himself.

[mlmpetert]

Joe, do you mind commenting on The Stand Your Ground defense and the likelihood of Zimmerman requesting it once closing statements are made?

Its seems that the defense only waived their right to a Stand Your Ground pretrial because they didn't want to show the prosecution (or the media) what their defense was. Perhaps they were also concerned of losing the pretrial and having that ruling potentially influence would be jurors.

The following article notes:

The "Stand Your Ground" law allows the use of deadly force as long as the defendant can prove the following factors:

• Are not engaged in an unlawful activity.
• Are being attacked in a place you have a right to be.
• Reasonably believe that your life and safety is in danger as a result of an overt act or perceived threat committed by someone else toward you.

No 'Stand Your Ground' for Zimmerman... yet | HLNtv.com

In your unbiased legal opinion and with regards only the specific and exact facts know to us thus far, do you think Zimmerman has a reasonable chance to prove all of the above factors? Would it be right to assume that his legal team will likely try to prove these factors in conjunction with their defense?

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

What do you mean "this outcome"? If the only fact you change is that T shoots Z, you still have much of the speculative issues presented. T claims he was in fear of his life but testimony places him on top of Z in "ground and pound" mode with Z yelling for help. Next thing we know, Z is dead. (assume also the other witnesses come out and say they see TM get off the ground with a prone Z next to him).

I think the case against TM would be stronger especially since his body showed no evidence of injury. But, essentially, and assuming TM asserts self-defense, you would have much the same issues - speculation as to who started the fight and what happened during it. Certainly, the underlying principles - burden of proof, legal elements of the crime charged and innocent until proven guilty would be applicable to TM just as they now apply to Z.

And to be clear - "a confrontation initiated by Z" is a generalization that encompasses both legal and illegal acts in this situation. Z can initiate a verbal confrontation. TM can initiate a verbal confrontation. NEITHER can initiate a physical confrontation.

People can yell at you and aggressively taunt you in public. They can call you dirty names. They can call you the N word. They can call you a crazy cracker. They can insult your parents, sister and kids. They can make general threats of harm so long as they do so from a position where they can't reasonably be expected to carry out the threat (Shouting "I'm gonna kick your ass" from 10 feet away). They can stay at more than arms length and "flinch" as if to strike you. ...

You know what you (be you a teen, child or adult) can do in these situations? Yell back, call the cops or simply ignore it. [If they make a threat and then move to carry it out - that's different e.g. saying they are going to kick your ass and then charging you. While you would still have a duty to retreat (in MD) - you only need do so if you believe you can reasonably get to a safe place]



Those "technical details" are, again, what I like to refer to as "law" and "burden of proof".

Z, through his actions, initiated the "situation" of a verbal confrontation - there is no evidence as to who started the "situation" of a physical confrontation. Leading up to the physical confontation, Z - IMHO - clearly exercised bad judgment. Bad judgment, however, is not a crime. Initiating a physical attack is - and that "situation" may have been "started" by Z or TM.

Before sending Z to jail, the State bears the burden of proof and persuasion to show BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that Z committed all the elements of the crime for which he is accused.



Who has alleged he has authority to harass anyone?? True, much as you don't like it, Z was legally authorized to carry a concealed weapon in public spaces. Assuming Z was harassing folks, however, if that harrasment was limited to following people and verbally confronting them, the appropriate response is to CALL THE F'ING POLICE. YOU DO NOT get to take matters into your own hands.

DAMN - why is this such a hard concept for folks to comprehend. Had TM said to his friend, "I'll call you back, I gotta call the police some crazy cracker is followng me." Maybe, just maybe, it would have been straightened out quickly. Instead, we get macho wannabe crime stopper versus macho wannabe teen and a tragic outcome with nothing but speculation on the key elements of legal responsibilty.

I gotta say, the willingness and ease with which some of you think violence is a proper response to being challenged, "harrased" or otherwise inconvenienced is disconcerting. Why does violence exist? B/c people still fundamentally believe it is the right way to resolve personal problems.



Well, screw the trial then - the line for pitchforks and torches starts behind G84C.

http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-w...ml#post1014278

The most valuable thing said in this thread, at least imho.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

http://www.thewarpath.net/debating-w...ml#post1014278

The most valuable thing said in this thread, at least imho.

Truth.

The case came down to this...

The prosecution had to prove GZ initiated the physical altercation. Not only did they not do this thy didnt even come close. The gap between what happened when GZ got out of the car and a dead body laying on the ground was wide. The only people who know were either dead or on trial for their life. Neither side made a truly convincing argument as to what happened. People can THINK they know what GZ did and what his state of mind was but they're only presuming on that point because there wasn't much evidence of that either. I think a trigger happy zilch got confronted, someone made a shove (probably even minor), the shove was reciprocated and all hell broke loose. Who did the initiating matters legally...and none of us know.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Let's just throw Z in the water - if he floats, he's guilty. If he drowns, he's innocent.

Finally! Some sense!

[JoeRedskin]

Just read through prosecution's witnesses regarding Z's "wannabe cop" status. Again, tell me how putting an African-American law professor on the stand who clearly likes the defendant (He waved and said "Hey George" when he took the stand), gave him an A in his class, and says Z was "one of the smarter students", is helpful to the prosecution. I am missing that.

On top of that, on Cross-X, the professor gives the defense a gold mine of good stuff:

- Injuries support a person's fear of great bodily harm, according to Carter, but a person can still have a fear of harm without having injuries. "You don't have to wait until you're almost dead to defense yourself?" asked West. "No, I would advise you probably not do that," said Carter.

- "It’s fluid, the law [on self-defense] as it applies isn’t static. Any change in a certain fact can weigh differently in terms of whether someone acted reasonably," said Carter.

- Carter says he taught his class: "When stuff hits the fan, you’re judged by jurors and your actions have to meet a reasonable standard, objectively. So whether or not a reasonable person in your position would have felt the way you felt." Carter also says part of self-defense is the individual's subjective feelings of facing death or "grievous bodily harm."

So, you put up a guy to testify about the applicable law who (1) is an African-American professional that likes your defendant and thinks highly of him and (2) opines on the law in a way that calls into question (by saying self-defense relies on subjective belief) the relevance of your medical expert's (Rao's) testimony about how, objectively and in-hind sight, Z should not have been reasonably in fear of his life.

Mind you, the prosecution fought to put this guy on the stand. I admit, I don't get it. Can someone from the pitchforks & torches mob inform me how Prof. Carter's testimony supported your belief that Z committed murder? Is it just - He studied law, he should have known better? He was a wannabe lawyer/cop? How does that alter the underlying speculative nature of the key legal elements of this case?

[JoeRedskin]

Today's running notes on the testimony:
Live blog: Was Zimmerman a 'wannabe cop?' | HLNtv.com

[RedskinRat]

Eerily reminiscent of the OJ trial in its ineptitude. Real WTF moments. Nancy Grace is going to implode, so at least there's an upside.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Eerily reminiscent of the OJ trial in its ineptitude. Real WTF moments. Nancy Grace is going to implode, so at least there's an upside.

In defense of prosecutors: This may be their biggest case of the year, it is certainly not their only one. If it's anything like Baltimore, these folks are vastly overworked.

It's not like on TV where you have nothing to do for three weeks and are spending night and day on this matter and have unlimited time to prep every witness to the nth degree. Even in the best of circumstances, putting on a trial is difficult work - so many variables. While the State has vast resources, it doesn't have vast resources to pinpoint on this one prosecution. The defense, on the other hand, can pretty much manipulate its case load to clear away substantial prep time and can focus all its financial reserves on this matter.

[I once went to observe one of the attorneys from my office at a trial. I walked in and, on one side of the room was one attorney, one paralegal, several notepads and 50 or so file boxes and manila folders in the benches behind her. On the other side were three attorneys, four paralegals, two law clerks, several laptops and a rolling bookcase of relevant caselaw and binders of clearly marked documents. Guess which side was the State?]

Generally, in run-of-the-mill cases, the prosecution gets a benefit from being the State and being able to call whatever crime scene investigators, DNA experts, accident reconstructionists, etc. at no particular expense b/c these folks work for the State. To oppose them, defendants usually have to spend big bucks to scrutinize all the evidence, chains of control, validity of methodology, etc.

With defendants who have a large war chest, this prosecutorial benefit goes to the wayside. In any real controversy, prosecutors have the much harder job. It's just a tough job and I don't envy them.

With that said, I just have a hard time understanding some of the prosecution's moves. They better have a brilliant closing planned.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

With that said, I just have a hard time understanding some of the prosecution's moves. They better have a brilliant closing planned.

I imagine it's going to sound a little like G84C. Because they certainly haven't proven much of anything other than no one knows what the heck happened for real.

[JoeRedskin]

For all those carrying pitchforks and torches, would your emotions be so inflamed if TM had killed Z under the exact same circumstances for which you say Z stands accused? i.e. - After following and verbally confronting an unarmed homeowner who TM subjectively thought was acting suspiciously, TM shoots and kills the homeowner because the teen was beginning to lose a fight that no one knows who started.

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

For all those carrying pitchforks and torches, would your emotions be so inflamed if TM had killed Z under the exact same circumstances for which you say Z stands accused? i.e. - After following and verbally confronting an unarmed homeowner who TM subjectively thought was acting suspiciously, TM shoots and kills the homeowner because the teen was beginning to lose a fight that no one knows who started.

Then Martin would be convicted of murder. cut and dry.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

For all those carrying pitchforks and torches, would your emotions be so inflamed if TM had killed Z under the exact same circumstances for which you say Z stands accused? i.e. - After following and verbally confronting an unarmed homeowner who TM subjectively thought was acting suspiciously, TM shoots and kills the homeowner because the teen was beginning to lose a fight that no one knows who started.

TM would be guilty.

i see zimmerman getting man 1 or 2.

Z contributed to there being a confrontation. Z may have been in fear of his life subjectively but just getting punched a few times doesnt rise to the level of an objective "kill or be killed" situation.

also you mentioned that it was unfavorable for the prosecutor to allow the professor witness say that a person needs to be subjectively in fear of death. to my understanding, while not helpful to the prosecutor, it is the correct recitation of law re lethal force self defense. although i wouldnt have allowed it. i would have told the judge that it would be improper to allow this character witness to testify as to the law of Florida as the judge will properly do as in her closing jury instructions as well as argue he was unqualified in voir dire .. although that would be odd to try and disqualify your own witness ..

a person fear needs to be reasonable (objective = reas person in his position would think they are going to die) and subjective (the person actually thought they were going to die)

ill try to come up with a hypo to illustrate (im sure it will be flawed)

1) A points gun at B and says "i'm going to kill you". B thinks he is going to die. B pulls out his own gun and shoots A.

- any reas/objective person would be in fear of their life. B was in actual/subjective fear for his life. = justified lethal self defense

2) A points gun at B. B knows the gun is not loaded and doesnt possess a threat. B pulls out his own gun and shoots A.

- any reas person would be in fear of having a gun pointed at them. However, B did not have any actual fear bc he knew the gun was not loaded.

now this hypo is flawed a bit b/c i think technically the test for passing the reas person standard wouldnt be "would a reas person fear for their life
when a gun is pointed at them" but "would a reas person fear for their life when an unloaded gun is pointed at them".... but i tried. coming up w perfect hypos are hard.