Commanders Post at The Warpath  

Home | Forums | Donate | Shop




Go Back   Commanders Post at The Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Debating with the enemy

Debating with the enemy Discuss politics, current events, and other hot button issues here.


Trayvon Martin Case

Debating with the enemy


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-10-2013, 05:25 PM   #1
JoeRedskin
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 62
Posts: 10,401
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Zimmerman will not testify. Defense has rested. Case goes to the jury Thursday.

Court denies Defense motion for acquital, Judge says "there's substantial evidence, both direct and circumstantial, that allows this case to go to the jury." [FWIW, I agree].
__________________
Strap it up, hold onto the ball, and let’s go.
JoeRedskin is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 06:30 PM   #2
RedskinRat
Franchise Player
 
RedskinRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: I'm in LA, trick!
Posts: 8,700
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

If you're 'soft' and take a pop to the head who's to say that you don't immediately fear for your life?
RedskinRat is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 07:38 PM   #3
JoeRedskin
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 62
Posts: 10,401
So, in this case, if you take every good fact for GZ made and every favorable inference reasonably flowing from them and accept them as 100% correct, would the legal requirements ( the five elements) of GZ's self defense claim be met? If so, a prima facia case is made, the defense is properly raised, the above instructions are given and the State's duty to rebut one or more of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt is invoked.

It is essentially saying "If we believe EVERYTHING favorable fact and inference as the god's honest truth, could a jury legally find you innocent?"
__________________
Strap it up, hold onto the ball, and let’s go.
JoeRedskin is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 07:47 PM   #4
saden1
MVP
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 45
Posts: 10,069
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
So, in this case, if you take every good fact for GZ made and every favorable inference reasonably flowing from them and accept them as 100% correct, would the legal requirements ( the five elements) of GZ's self defense claim be met? If so, a prima facia case is made, the defense is properly raised, the above instructions are given and the State's duty to rebut one or more of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt is invoked.

It is essentially saying "If we believe EVERYTHING favorable fact and inference as the god's honest truth, could a jury legally find you innocent?"
I get all of that, what I don't get is why you seem to think there is no obligation on the part of the defense to present these facts. If the presentation of these facts by the defense is not optional then there exists a burden on the defense!
__________________
"The Redskins have always suffered from chronic organizational deformities under Snyder."

-Jenkins
saden1 is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 07:59 PM   #5
JoeRedskin
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 62
Posts: 10,401
Because the prosecution has submitted all the necessary facts to establish the defense during their case in chief. -- They didn't have to put GZ' s statements to the cops in, the didn't have to play the Hannity interview, they didn't have to play the reenactment, they didn't have to put Zimm's author friend on the stand. They didn't have to call Good or the EMT to testify.

But they did.

In light of all that evidence, GZ has no legal obligation to present anything more.
__________________
Strap it up, hold onto the ball, and let’s go.
JoeRedskin is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 08:10 PM   #6
saden1
MVP
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 45
Posts: 10,069
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
Because the prosecution has submitted all the necessary facts to establish the defense during their case in chief. -- They didn't have to put GZ' s statements to the cops in, the didn't have to play the Hannity interview, they didn't have to play the reenactment, they didn't have to put Zimm's author friend on the stand. They didn't have to call Good or the EMT to testify.

But they did.

In light of all that evidence, GZ has no legal obligation to present anything more.
What you describe is a defense tactic in which it piggy-backs on the prosecution. That isn't to say though that they are not legally obligated to present evidence to support his self-defense.
__________________
"The Redskins have always suffered from chronic organizational deformities under Snyder."

-Jenkins
saden1 is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 08:34 PM   #7
JoeRedskin
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 62
Posts: 10,401
You want GZ on the stand testifying and he simply has no legal burden to do so.

Even if the prosecution DIDN'T put the evidence listed on, GZ could and leave it at that. In light of the evidence presented by the prosecution, what need be shown to establish a prima facia case?? Short of taking the stand himself what could he possibly present that has not been brought out by the prosecution??

It's always the defendant's option/risk of resting your case without testifying. Even when you are arguing an affirmative defense is applicable. This is true in any case. Civil or criminal (although in a civil trial you can be subpoenaed by the other side).
__________________
Strap it up, hold onto the ball, and let’s go.
JoeRedskin is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 08:35 PM   #8
CRedskinsRule
Living Legend
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Age: 58
Posts: 21,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
What you describe is a defense tactic in which it piggy-backs on the prosecution. That isn't to say though that they are not legally obligated to present evidence to support his self-defense.
Taking the points JR summarized and putting them up as the defense closing statement using facts already in evidence would seem to satisfy what you are saying the defense needs to do. Not quite sure what else you are saying they would need to do.
CRedskinsRule is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 08:36 PM   #9
JoeRedskin
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 62
Posts: 10,401
He is absolutely allowed to "piggy back" the prosecution case. The evidence is the evidence. It doesn't "belong" to anyone.
__________________
Strap it up, hold onto the ball, and let’s go.
JoeRedskin is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 09:00 PM   #10
Chico23231
Warpath Hall of Fame
 
Chico23231's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 34,860
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Of course Zim's not gonna take the stand and give the world his side of the story, because thats what a man does and he's a straight up bitch. its his mo at this point

If he's gets off, Id like to go ahead and go old skool and exile him.
__________________
My pronouns: King/Your ruler

He Gets Us
Chico23231 is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 09:10 PM   #11
HailGreen28
Playmaker
 
HailGreen28's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,754
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chico23231 View Post
Of course Zim's not gonna take the stand and give the world his side of the story, because thats what a man does and he's a straight up bitch. its his mo at this point

If he's gets off, Id like to go ahead and go old skool and exile him.
Serious question: Why do you think we have the 5th amendment?
HailGreen28 is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 09:07 PM   #12
CRedskinsRule
Living Legend
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Age: 58
Posts: 21,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chico23231 View Post
Of course Zim's not gonna take the stand and give the world his side of the story, because thats what a man does and he's a straight up bitch. its his mo at this point

If he's gets off, Id like to go ahead and go old skool and exile him.
I would hesitate to say for certain, but I would be shocked if more than a small percentage of defendants took the stand. One wrong word or wrong appearance might just be enough to sway a juror or jury against you. You pay a lawyer to present your case and the smartest defendants shut the hell up and don't say anything unless their lawyer tells them to.
CRedskinsRule is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 09:14 PM   #13
JoeRedskin
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 62
Posts: 10,401
So, instead of "lawyering up", GZ meets and cooperates with police when he was under no legal compulsion to do so (at any point, all he has to say is, "I refuse to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me" ), giving multiple statements - including a videotaped moment by moment description - all of which he likely knew could be (and ultimately were) used against him. That counts for nothing.

Exercising your 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination at trial? What a wuss.
__________________
Strap it up, hold onto the ball, and let’s go.
JoeRedskin is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 09:35 PM   #14
Chico23231
Warpath Hall of Fame
 
Chico23231's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 34,860
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

oh no I agree, lying to cover his ass has worked just fine to this point. "We just gotta make it look like your life was in danger" that's the out in this case. brilliant stuff

Lets give him a gun and send'm back into the neighborhood to get his job as neighbor patrol officer career going again. outstanding country. Anybody let'm patrol their street first? Lets give'm a cape too, he's a super hero by all accounts
__________________
My pronouns: King/Your ruler

He Gets Us
Chico23231 is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 10:22 PM   #15
JoeRedskin
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 62
Posts: 10,401
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Also, saden1 ...

The youtube clip is simply the prosecutor's response to GZ's motion for acquittal. In that instance, the standard of review by the judge is just the opposite of that needed for a jury instruction on self defense. In opposing a motion for acquittal the prosecution is the one entitled to having the facts viewed in a light most favorable to them. It's all about generating a question of fact and only tangentially related to the closing. Hell, he argues that in front of the jury, it's a concession speech - Just one example, the prosecutor says forensics concerning the bullet wound "is, at least, as consistent with [the State's] version of the events as it is with the Defendant's". Equally consistent versions comporting with provable forensic evidence? How can that not be reasonable doubt? I am just not getting it.

If there were two plausible stories with TM as the survivor - would you convict him?
__________________
Strap it up, hold onto the ball, and let’s go.
JoeRedskin is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We have no official affiliation with the Washington Commanders or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.95523 seconds with 10 queries