Trayvon Martin Case

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

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.

Z contributed to the verbal confrontation - sure. His contribution to the physical confrontation is simply unknown.

Also, you draw the factual conclusion that Z "was punched a few times" and the direct of Dr. Rao provides objective support for that factual conclusion. At the same time, I think the course of the fight is somewhat speculative beyond Z's injuries and Good's testimony. Again, the EMT's testimony about Z on the spot was that the injuries he received would probably put someone in reasonable fear of his life.

Originally Posted by over the mountain

also you mentioned that it was unfavorable for the prosecutor to allow the professor witness say that a person needs to be subjective fear of death. to my understanding, while not helpful to the prosecutor, it is the correct recitation of law re lethal force self defense.

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.

My point with the Prof. was that, while he may have correctly stated the law, why let a witness, friendly to the accused, do this (it's akin to letting OJ try on the gloves) instead of simply bringing it out in final argument. That way, instead having it manipulated against you, you get to couch it in a way consistent with your case. This was just not a witness I would have put on.

I get your analogy and don't think it is all that flawed. A modification that might make it more applicable would be, in the second case: B can't tell if gun is loaded, in the moment thinks it might be and shoots A. After the fact, a reasonable person who reviews the incident - w/out the gun being pointed at them - believe it obvious that the gun was unloaded. In that case, I believe, but am not positive, that the subjective belief is sufficient defense because the objective person has to place themselves in the shoes of person B and attempt to review it from the reasonableness from that position -- not as neutral observer. It seems to me, if person A engages in actions that create a subjective doubt as to fear of life, person A cannot then benefit from objective hindsight to say the B was unreasonable.

Here, through his statements to police, interviews on TV and in statements to friends, Z has consistently (with tangential inconsistencies) asserted his subjective belief that he was in fear for his life during the fight - a subjective belief that, in concert with his injuries, is supported by the EMT's and Good's testimony. On the other hand, in hind sight, and with no knowledge of the exact specifics, neutral observers (Chico and G84C) see a simple fist-fight with one guy clearly losing but in a manner which doesn't appear to them to be life threatening. To me, finding someone guilty of a crime based on hindsight and speculation is patently unfair. Barring clear evidence that Z's subjective belief was patently unreasonable, I don't think the State has met its burden.

In light of Z's injuries, Good's testimony, and the testimony of the on-site EMT, I think the State simply has got to come up with more than Dr. Rao's speculative hindsight to prove Z's belief was unreasonable.

[Gary84Clark]

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;1014343]Z contributed to the verbal confrontation - sure. His contribution to the physical confrontation is simply unknown.

He fired the shot that killed Martin, and that my friend is Z's contribution to the physical confrontation. He shot an unarmed person, after confronting them. Martin had a right to be where he was, he was visiting a resident. Joe acts as if Trayvon was a scary unusual person. He saw someone walking through a condo complex. so what? They get into a wrestling match, so what? He shot the guy, highly unusual event.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

He fired the shot that killed Martin, and that my friend is Z's contribution to the physical confrontation. He shot an unarmed person, after confronting them. Martin had a right to be where he was, he was visiting a resident. Joe acts as if Trayvon was a scary unusual person. He saw someone walking through a condo complex. so what? They get into a wrestling match, so what? He shot the guy, highly unusual event.

Firing the shot was the conclusion of the physical confrontation - not it's initiation. Sorry, since "who initiated the physical confrontation" has been my central theme, I thought you smart enough to pick up on the nuance. Going forward, I shall not make any assumptions as to your ability for basic contextual analysis or, for that matter, any semblance of intelligence on your part.

Martin had a right to be where he was. Z had a right to be where he was. What neither had the right to do was initiate a physical confrontation or put the other in fear of imminent physical danger. Has the State shown beyond a a reasonable doubt that Z initiated a physical confrontation or put the TM in fear of imminent physical danger? Does not appear that way to me.

Was TM a "scary unusual person"? Don't know, don't care and have never asserted anything one way or the other on the topic.

The assertion "they get into a wrestling match" glosses over most of the key factual elements the State needs to prove and completely eliminates others.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Again, the EMT's testimony about Z on the spot was that the injuries he received would probably put someone in reasonable fear of his life.



My point with the Prof. was that, while he may have correctly stated the law, why let a witness, friendly to the accused, do this.

1 - the EMT also testified that the injuries were consistent with the back of zimmerman's head hitting to concrete once .. not repeatedly like zimmerman said.

2 - the professor was called to testify that zimmerman was his best student and that they covered the florida "stand your ground" law ... which is important to the prosecution bc zimmerman sd he didnt know the "stand your ground" law a year after the event .. which supports the prosecutor's contention that zimmerman has been tailoring his version of events to benefit a self defense argument. so the professor was helpful on that front.

like i said previously, reckless disregard for human life sounds right to me . . .its up to the jury

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

1 - the EMT also testified that the injuries were consistent with the back of zimmerman's head hitting to concrete once .. not repeatedly like zimmerman said.

2 - the professor was called to testify that zimmerman was his best student and that they covered the florida "stand your ground" law ... which is important to the prosecution bc zimmerman sd he didnt know the "stand your ground" law a year after the event .. which supports the prosecutor's contention that zimmerman has been tailoring his version of events to benefit a self defense argument. so the professor was helpful on that front.

like i said previously, reckless disregard for human life sounds right to me . . .its up to the jury

Ther were break ins at teh condo complezx and Zim accused all young black males. He finally found one naive enough and harmless looking enough to bully. But it's not what you know, it's waht you can prove.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

Ther were break ins at teh condo complezx and Zim accused all young black males. He finally found one naive enough and harmless looking enough to bully. But it's not what you know, it's waht you can prove.

Must suck to be you.....

Reuters

A criminal justice student who aspired to become a judge, Zimmerman also concerned himself with the safety of his neighbors after a series of break-ins committed by young African-American men.

Though civil rights demonstrators have argued Zimmerman should not have prejudged Martin, one black neighbor of the Zimmermans said recent history should be taken into account.

"Let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm black, OK?" the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin."

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

1 - the EMT also testified that the injuries were consistent with the back of zimmerman's head hitting to concrete once .. not repeatedly like zimmerman said.

2 - the professor was called to testify that zimmerman was his best student and that they covered the florida "stand your ground" law ... which is important to the prosecution bc zimmerman sd he didnt know the "stand your ground" law a year after the event .. which supports the prosecutor's contention that zimmerman has been tailoring his version of events to benefit a self defense argument. so the professor was helpful on that front.

like i said previously, reckless disregard for human life sounds right to me . . .its up to the jury

1. Reviewed EMT testimony - She never said that. The only testimony I saw to that effect was Dr. Rao who viewed the photos after the incident. As I said earlier, I think cross exposed her testimony for the speculation it was.

2. Maybe. I get the whole "Zimmerman is a liar" attack to discredit his account of the events. Since they don't get to ask him directly during a cross exam (at least I expecting Zimmerman not to testify), not sure putting the professors and others on to demonstrate what, to me, is essentially a tangential lie. I expect, the only lie the jury cares about is whether he thought he was in fear of his life. To me, the professors were a lot of work for not much gain and, possibly, very harmful to the prosecution.

I hear the "reckless disregard" and understand where you and Chico are coming from. I also understand that Zimmerman is to "truth challenged" (to say the least). I just don't think the prosecution has brought enough to the table to show (again, beyond a reasonable doubt) that Z 's actions were "reckless" or even negligent that night, because, even assuming all the defense has is a questionable "I was in fear of my life" claim from Z, I am just not seeing enough non-speculative evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) to say, without any reasonable doubts, that Z didn't act in that fashion.