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?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 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:
[/LIST]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?

Be happy to address this. Just not today ... maybe later tonight.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 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.

As of 2008, they did not have any procedural rules requiring the motion to be made pre-trial. Rather, the Florida appellate court determined that, if an immunity motion on the Stand Your Ground basis was made, the trial court would have a preliminary evidentiary hearing to determine if it was applicable. In this hearing, and unlike the affirmative defense of self-defense, the accused bears the burden, by a preponderance of the evidence, to prove all elements of the statutorily granted immunity. If he does so, then the case must be dismissed. Here is (what I believe) to be Florida's lead case on the issue: Peterson v. State Decision result | Leagle.com

Here are the current rules for Criminal Procedure: Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure | Chapter 8, Florida Statutes 2012. I didn't review them in detail but suspect that there are still no specific rules on the matter.

If I am the defense, I certainly would make such a motion ((post-trial - see below) and argue that there is no rule or binding authority requiring the motion be filed pre-trial. As the law appears to be silent on when the immunity must be exercised and the Court has not exercised its rule making authority to require the motion pre-trial, to deny my client the right to make such a motion post-trial is a reversible abuse of discretion by the trial court. Further, and in the alternative, I would argue that requiring the motion be held pre-trial would unnecessarily jeopardize my client's rights against self-incrimination and creates an impermissible Hobbesian dilemma of whether to exercise his constitutional right against self-incrimination or risk providing self-incriminating remarks in order to prove his statutorily granted immunity.

Don't know if the Court would buy it in light of the Peterson decision, but I sure would try. Again, however, a Florida lawyer would be much more familiar with the governing procedural rights and might just "point and laugh" at the Maryland lawyer's analysis of Florida law.

In a case like this, I can completely understand the defense's decision NOT to make the preliminary motion. Why subject Z to cross-x when the prosecution is intending to introduce all his statements about self-defense to the court at the substantive trial. If Z testifies on immunity in a pre-trial hearing, he would get scorched on cross-x ... all of his inconsistencies highlighted, all of his background issues brought out and all of his pre-trial lies emphasized (remember the whole money transfer issue??) all in the name of attacking his credibility. On top of that, I am pretty sure the entire transcript could then be read at the subsequent trial as testimony taken under oath on the specific issue subject to the trial.

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

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?

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.

Short Answer: I think Z loses on SYG b/c he can't meet his burden of proof.

Based on the facts we think we know, I don't think Z wins on SYG for much the same reason that the prosecution is having so much difficulty presenting their case. There is just too much speculation and too little evidence of what happened that night.

- Was he engaged in an unlawful activity: For him to given immunity, it is Z's burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Martin started the physical confrontation. I think that's a loser right out of the gate. The only way to do that is for Z to testify credibly that TM started the fight. Initially, Z would be crossed mercilessly and ALL of his inconsistencies would be brought out (and the cross would be available for introduction at trial). I don't think he makes a credible witness on the stand. Also, crappy as she was, Jeneatte's testimony about TM saying "Get off, Get off" makes the "lawfulness" of Z's actions a much closer "he said/she said" issue. Given Z's (to put it mildly) credibility issues, and in light of Jeanette's testimony, I just don't see a "preponderance of the evidence" that TM attacked him.

- Are being attacked in a place you have a right to be: Well, he certainly had a right to be there, just as much as Martin but, again, was he the initial attacker or the attackee? I just don't think he can prove he was attacked even under the more lenient "preponderance of the evidence" standard.

- 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: See, again, as with the prosecution - burden of proof is a bitch. I don't know that Z has proved this by a preponderance of evidence. Maybe - but there is just way too much speculation on the point with credible evidence weighing in on both sides.

This last point is demonstrative of one of my consistent themes in this matter - BURDEN OF PROOF. Based on the evidence presented, I question whether Z has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Z was in reasonable fear for his life. At the same time, based on that same evidence, I feel confident in saying that the State has not proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he wasn't.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

As of 2008, they did not have any procedural rules requiring the motion to be made pre-trial. Rather, the Florida appellate court determined that, if an immunity motion on the Stand Your Ground basis was made, the trial court would have a preliminary evidentiary hearing to determine if it was applicable. In this hearing, and unlike the affirmative defense of self-defense, the accused bears the burden, by a preponderance of the evidence, to prove all elements of the statutorily granted immunity. If he does so, then the case must be dismissed. Here is (what I believe) to be Florida's lead case on the issue: Peterson v. State Decision result | Leagle.com

Here are the current rules for Criminal Procedure: Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure | Chapter 8, Florida Statutes 2012. I didn't review them in detail but suspect that there are still no specific rules on the matter.

If I am the defense, I certainly would make such a motion ((post-trial - see below) and argue that there is no rule or binding authority requiring the motion be filed pre-trial. As the law appears to be silent on when the immunity must be exercised and the Court has not exercised its rule making authority to require the motion pre-trial, to deny my client the right to make such a motion post-trial is a reversible abuse of discretion by the trial court. Further, and in the alternative, I would argue that requiring the motion be held pre-trial would unnecessarily jeopardize my client's rights against self-incrimination and creates an impermissible Hobbesian dilemma of whether to exercise his constitutional right against self-incrimination or risk providing self-incriminating remarks in order to prove his statutorily granted immunity.

Don't know if the Court would buy it in light of the Peterson decision, but I sure would try. Again, however, a Florida lawyer would be much more familiar with the governing procedural rights and might just "point and laugh" at the Maryland lawyer's analysis of Florida law.

In a case like this, I can completely understand the defense's decision NOT to make the preliminary motion. Why subject Z to cross-x when the prosecution is intending to introduce all his statements about self-defense to the court at the substantive trial. If Z testifies on immunity in a pre-trial hearing, he would get scorched on cross-x ... all of his inconsistencies highlighted, all of his background issues brought out and all of his pre-trial lies emphasized (remember the whole money transfer issue??) all in the name of attacking his credibility. On top of that, I am pretty sure the entire transcript could then be read at the subsequent trial as testimony taken under oath on the specific issue subject to the trial.



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.

Short Answer: I think Z loses on SYG b/c he can't meet his burden of proof.

Based on the facts we think we know, I don't think Z wins on SYG for much the same reason that the prosecution is having so much difficulty presenting their case. There is just too much speculation and too little evidence of what happened that night.

- Was he engaged in an unlawful activity: For him to given immunity, it is Z's burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Martin started the physical confrontation. I think that's a loser right out of the gate. The only way to do that is for Z to testify credibly that TM started the fight. Initially, Z would be crossed mercilessly and ALL of his inconsistencies would be brought out (and the cross would be available for introduction at trial). I don't think he makes a credible witness on the stand. Also, crappy as she was, Jeneatte's testimony about TM saying "Get off, Get off" makes the "lawfulness" of Z's actions a much closer "he said/she said" issue. Given Z's (to put it mildly) credibility issues, and in light of Jeanette's testimony, I just don't see a "preponderance of the evidence" that TM attacked him.

- Are being attacked in a place you have a right to be: Well, he certainly had a right to be there, just as much as Martin but, again, was he the initial attacker or the attackee? I just don't think he can prove he was attacked even under the more lenient "preponderance of the evidence" standard.

- 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: See, again, as with the prosecution - burden of proof is a bitch. I don't know that Z has proved this by a preponderance of evidence. Maybe - but there is just way too much speculation on the point with credible evidence weighing in on both sides.

This last point is demonstrative of one of my consistent themes in this matter - BURDEN OF PROOF. Based on the evidence presented, I question whether Z has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Z was in reasonable fear for his life. At the same time, based on that same evidence, I feel confident in saying that the State has not proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he wasn't.

Awesome! Thank you for continually providing the well thought out and thorough professional point of view. Unfortunately most people dont seem to have the ability to provide objective thoughts or comments regarding this case; i think nearly everyone here appreciates your willingness to offer the opposite.

[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.