Trayvon Martin Case

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

You can call bullshit all you want - you would be wrong. You call bullshit on lots of things where reality conflicts with with the world according saden1. Nothing new there.

Whether admitted in the indictment, introduced by the prosecution during the trial or placed into controversy by the defendant, once raised, it is the State's burden to prove your guilt. Your analogy is miles away from GZ's claim and, in these matters, the devil is in the details. You may claim it. but without something more, (injuries, evidence of a fight, someone hearing you screaming for help), it will be pretty easy to overcome a simple "uhh, he tried to kill me - yeah, that's the ticket!" defense.

Again - here are Florida's pattern jury instructions:



Unlike your simplistic, devoid of facts example, in this case, by their own admission, and as demonstrated through their own evidence, the State has placed Zimm's self-defense claim at issue and no bears the burden of proof and persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt.

So I ask you again: Through the admitted evidence, and without speculation or argumentative characterizations, demonstrate that the State has eliminated all reasonable doubt such that the claim is invalidated as to any one of the five elements necesary for a valid claim of self-defense.

You're complexifying the case and completely ignoring the affirmative defense aspect of the case. WTF do you mean by speculation? Regardless of which side you approach the case from there is an element of inference involved. I mean, the entire case is built on circumstantial evidence because only two people really know what happened.

Since your are so keen on the fact of the case, here are the fact of the case:

1. Zimmerman profiled Martin (has a history of doing so).
2. Zimmerman perused Martin (he didn't want him to get away with "it").
3. Zimmerman called the Police and was advised not to continue perusing Martin.
4. Zimmerman's 911 call has a 2 min gap (why?)
5. Zimmerman didn't identify himself to Martin as a Neighborhood Watchman.
6. Zimmerman got out of his car to look at street signs in a Neighborhood with 3 streets (how odd).
7. Zimmerman has MMA training ("soft" or not Martin didn't have such training).
8. Zimmerman weighs 40lb more than Martin.
9. Zimmerman has made conflicting statements about what angle Martin approached and attacked him from.
10. Zimmerman was more worried about going to work and class the next day after killing someone (that's not normal).
11. Zimmerman exaggerated his injuries.
12. Zimmerman lied that he didn't know about Stand Your Ground law on national TV.
13. Zimmerman claimed that the voice recording doesn't sound like him.
14. There is conflicting witness statements about who initiated the confrontation and who was on top (doesn't help the defense and it certainly doesn't negate the other facts the case).
15. There is conflicting witness statements who was screaming (Zimmerman himself said it doesn't sound like me only to change his tune later).

If I am on the jury that's enough circumstantial evidence to convict Martin of at least manslaughter because I don't believe his actions to be reasonable. You can laugh and yell all you fcking want Joe but there is enough to convict him and I certainly would find him guilty as charged. I will go back to the prosecutor's statements and I will collect on my bets...Believe that!

p.s. Can you tell us what Affirmative Defense is all about?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

You're complexifying the case and completely ignoring the affirmative defense aspect of the case. WTF do you mean by speculation? Regardless of which side you approach the case from there is an element of inference involved. I mean, the entire case is built on circumstantial evidence because only two people really know what happened.

Since your are so keen on the fact of the case, here are the fact of the case:

1. Zimmerman profiled Martin (has a history of doing so).
2. Zimmerman perused Martin (he didn't want him to get away with "it").
3. Zimmerman called the Police and was advised not to continue perusing Martin.
4. Zimmerman's 911 call has a 2 min gap (why?)
5. Zimmerman didn't identify himself to Martin as a Neighborhood Watchman.
6. Zimmerman got out of his car to look at street signs in a Neighborhood with 3 streets (how odd).
7. Zimmerman has MMA training ("soft" or not Martin didn't have such training).
8. Zimmerman weighs 40lb more than Martin.
9. Zimmerman has made conflicting statements about what angle Martin approached and attacked him from.
10. Zimmerman was more worried about going to work and class the next day after killing someone (that's not normal).
11. Zimmerman exaggerated his injuries.
12. Zimmerman lied that he didn't know about Stand Your Ground law on national TV.
13. Zimmerman claimed that the voice recording doesn't sound like him.
14. There is conflicting witness statements about who initiated the confrontation and who was on top (doesn't help the defense and it certainly doesn't negate the other facts the case).
15. There is conflicting witness statements who was screaming (Zimmerman himself said it doesn't sound like me only to change his tune later).

If I am on the jury that's enough circumstantial evidence to convict Martin of at least manslaughter because I don't believe his actions to be reasonable. You can laugh and yell all you fcking want Joe but there is enough to convict him and I certainly would find him guilty as charged. I will go back to the prosecutor's statements and I will collect on my bets...Believe that!

p.s. Can you tell us what Affirmative Defense is all about?

None of what you said addresses:

(1) Is there reasonable doubt as to who initiated the physical confrontation. Hell, You even admit "There is conflicting witness statements about who initiated the confrontation and who was on top (doesn't help the defense and it certainly doesn't negate the other facts the case)." It isn't about "negating" evidence; it's about "reasonable doubt". You're entire list is devoid of any evidence circumstantial or otherwise as to who initiated the physical combat.

(2) Is there reasonable doubt that GZ in fear of his life at the time he shot TM. You at least include relevent facts (weight, MMA training). Of course you ignore Good's statements, the EMT at the scene and several other aspects.

Again, it's hard to take anything you say seriously given your initial reaction and refusal to think critically at any point since then.

Can't get the youtube at work.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

None of what you said addresses:

(1) Is there reasonable doubt as to who initiated the physical confrontation. Hell, You even admit "There is conflicting witness statements about who initiated the confrontation and who was on top (doesn't help the defense and it certainly doesn't negate the other facts the case)." It isn't about "negating" evidence; it's about "reasonable doubt". You're entire list is devoid of any evidence circumstantial or otherwise as to who initiated the physical combat.

(2) Is there reasonable doubt that GZ in fear of his life at the time he shot TM. You at least include relevent facts (weight, MMA training). Of course you ignore Good's statements, the EMT at the scene and several other aspects.

Again, it's hard to take anything you say seriously given your initial reaction and refusal to think critically at any point since then.

Can't get the youtube at work.

1. Again, I am saying that if the defendant is claiming self-defense then burden is on him to create doubt by providing evidence to the contrary. Nothing Zimmerman's defense team has shown places doubt as two who initiated the attack only that Zimmerman sustained non-threatening injuries while Martin sustained a gun shot to the heart. You seem to think this is a win for the defense and I do not. All he has to show is a few buries and conflicting witness statement neither of which necessary refuted a larger body of circumstantial evidence.

2. All Zimmerman so far is say "i have scars on my head" and I don't believe that to be sufficient to create doubt. Even if the scars life threatening there isn't sufficient evidence who attacked who first. As for Goods, he isn't credible and I wouldn't place much value in his testimony:

Jonathan Good, the witness, testified in a Florida courtroom Friday that he could not see whether Trayvon was punching Zimmerman during the fight, contradicting earlier police statements he made.

I will ask you again, what is Affirmative Defense?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

1. Again, I am saying that if the defendant is claiming self-defense then burden is on him to create doubt by providing evidence to the contrary. Nothing Zimmerman's defense team has shown places doubt as two who initiated the attack only that Zimmerman sustained non-threatening injuries while Martin sustained a gun shot to the heart. You seem to think this is a win for the defense and I do not. All he has to show is a few buries and conflicting witness statement neither of which necessary refuted a larger body of circumstantial evidence.

2. All Zimmerman so far is say "i have scars on my head" and I don't believe that to be sufficient to create doubt. Even if the scars life threatening there isn't sufficient evidence that who attacked who. As for Goods, he isn't credible and I wouldn't place much value in his testimony

I will ask you again, what is Affirmative Defense?

(1) Your just f'ing wrong on how you are applying the law. It is not his "burden to create doubt". Read the F'ing case law OMT googled and the jury instructions and tell me how your assertion is consistent with them.

(2) So you entireely discount the EMT's assertion that a person exhibiting GZ's injuries would probably be in fear for their medical safety and concerned about concussive or brain injuries. Doesn't cause you the tiniest bit of doubt. Good isn't credible?? The one guy who had a close up view of the altercation as it was occuring? And his testimony that GZ was screaming for help is just flluff?

Affirmative defense is a defense raised by the defending party.

In a civil matter, to gain the benefit of the affirmative defense, the defendant raising it must prove all its elements by a preponderance of the evidence. If he does so, plaintiff must then rebut the defense by disproving one or more elements by a preponderance of the evidence or his claim will fail.

In a criminal matter, whether raised by the defendant or fairly generated by the State's evidence, once a prima facie case has been made (i.e. viewing the facts in evidence, and any reasonable inferences drawn from them, in a light most favorable to the defendant, they create the possibilty of a jury question), the burden is then upon the state to eliminate all reasonable doubt as to one or more of the elements of the affirmative defense. If they fail to do so, a verdict of not guilty is required.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

(1) Your just f'ing wrong on how you are applying the law. It is not his "burden to create doubt". Read the F'ing case law OMT googled and the jury instructions and tell me how your assertion is consistent with them.

(2) So you entireely discount the EMT's assertion that a person exhibiting GZ's injuries would probably be in fear for their medical safety and concerned about concussive or brain injuries. Doesn't cause you the tiniest bit of doubt. Good isn't credible?? The one guy who had a close up view of the altercation as it was occuring? And his testimony that GZ was screaming for help is just flluff?

Affirmative defense is a defense raised by the defending party.

In a civil matter, to gain the benefit of the affirmative defense, the defendant raising it must prove all its elements by a preponderance of the evidence. If he does so, plaintiff must then rebut the defense by disproving one or more elements by a preponderance of the evidence or his claim will fail.

In a criminal matter, whether raised by the defendant or fairly generated by the State's evidence, once a prima facie case has been made (i.e. viewing the facts in evidence, and any reasonable inferences drawn from them, in a light most favorable to the defendant, they create the possibilty of a jury question), the burden is then upon the state to eliminate all reasonable doubt as to one or more of the elements of the affirmative defense. If they fail to do so, a verdict of not guilty is required.

It is not his "burden to create doubt".

So basically the state can present evidence and all Zimmerman has to do is show up to court? He is not obligated to take an active role in demonstrating why the state's claims should be doubted?

If you're going to claim self-defense you must show it was self-defense. If you're going to claim insanity you must show you are insane. All you're doing is circling the wagon and avoiding the heart of the matter. Has the state demonstrated enough evidence to convict? I believe it has. Has Zimmerman provided enough evidence to create reasonable doubt? You seem to think so without actually saying "there is a level of burden on the defense in a self-defense case to refuted the evidence presented by the prosecution and create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors."

As for Good, any witness that changes their story is suspect. Which version of his story should we believe? Or should we just dismiss his testimony outright? If I am a juror, I dismiss his testimony as not credible. As for the EMT, his testimony adds little value except to say he was injured. I don't who initiated the altercation but I do know who was stalking who, and who violated reasonableness therefore I will dismiss his testimony as peripheral.

You can attack me all you want and make snide comments but I tell you what, I've put my money where my mouth is and I stand by everything I have said in this thread. We'll know who was right and was wrong wrong wrong soon enough.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

So basically the state can present evidence and all Zimmerman has to do is show up to court? He is not obligated to take an active role in demonstrating why the state's claims should be doubted?

If you're going to claim self-defense you must show it was self-defense. If you're going to claim insanity you must show you are insane. All you're doing is circling the wagon and avoiding the heart of the matter. Has the state demonstrated enough evidence to convict? I believe it has. Has Zimmerman provided enough evidence to create reasonable doubt? You seem to think so without actually saying "there is a level of burden on the defense in a self-defense case to refuted the evidence presented by the prosecution and create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors."

As for Good, any witness that changes their story is suspect. Which version of his story should we believe? Or should we just dismiss his testimony outright? If I am a juror, I dismiss his testimony as not credible. As for the EMT, his testimony adds little value except to say he was injured. I don't who initiated the altercation but I do know who was stalking who, and who violated reasonableness therefore I will dismiss his testimony as peripheral.

You can attack me all you want and make snide comments but I tell you what, I've put my money where my mouth is and I stand by everything I have said in this thread. We'll know who was right and was wrong wrong wrong soon enough.

He is obligated (from the way I understand it) to show a basic initial face value claim. After that yes, he does sit back and the State has to show beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't seem as complicated as you may be making it.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

He is obligated (from the way I understand it) to show a basic initial face value claim. After that yes, he does sit back and the State has to show beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't seem as complicated as you may be making it.

That's exactly what I am saying. It's Joe that making this more complicated than it is. All I have said all along is that self-defense places a burden on the defense, much more so than in non-affirmative defense.