Trayvon Martin Case

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Is anyone else surprised at how inept the Prosecution is?

JR? You'd have done a better job, right?

It seems more like they have very little to work with.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Is anyone else surprised at how inept the Prosecution is?

JR? You'd have done a better job, right?

I would hope so. They don't have a lot to work with given the lack of evidence on the key fact (who started it). Certainly, I would like to think I would have done more to manage the "bad" evidence. Also, they should have known and be prepped for the EMT's testimony and done what they could to discredit/pre-empt it.

[JoeRedskin]

OTM - To a certain degree, you are correct and I am in full agreement with you. You cannot resort to deadly force simply b/c you are losing a fight. You can, however, resort to deadly force w/out being guilty of manslaughter or murder if (1) you are losing a fight, (2) in fear of your life - and (3) are not responsible for starting the fight.

If you start a fight, begin to lose it but have no reasonable fear for your life, and kill someone, that's murder 1 (By the way, this is the scenario applicable to my following G84C, him starting a fight, me kicking his butt and him shooting me. So long as all I do is kick his ass in a fight and pull off when he inevitably starts screaming for help).

If you start a fight, begin to lose and have reasonable fear for your life, and use deadly force, that's murder 2 (This is the scenario applicable to my following G84C, him starting a fight, me going beyond just beating him, and him shooting me);

If both parties enter into mutual combat (e.g. - two guys in a bar say "let's take it outside"), one begins to lose but has no reasonable fear for his life and kills his opponent anyway, murder 2.

If both parties enter into mutual combat, one begins to lose, has reasonable fear for his life and kills his opponent, manslaughter.

If a party does not start the fight, begins to lose, then has reasonable fear of his life, and kills his opponent - innocent.

[Disclaimer: I am not a criminal lawyer. The various degrees and factors going into determining the "level" of a homicide are dependent on State law and are not particularly straightforward. The breakdown above is based on some research I had previously done and my understanding of certain basic principles].

Here, there is clear evidence of a fight between Martin and Zimmerman. For any charge to stick, however, the Prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either Zimmerman started the fight or there was an agreement (tacit or otherwise) between Z and TM to enter into mutual combat. Unless I missed it, there is simply no evidence of who started the fight (who moved it from a verbal confrontation to a physical one). There is lots and lots of speculation based on what people believe the parties were thinking or who the type of person they believe TM or Z to be.

I simply don't think the evidence to date does (or ever will) show how this fight started. B/c of that, I don't think, as a matter of law, the prosecution can prove its case. To me, it's that simple. For those who say, well, it's Martin's word against Z and Martin is dead. True enough. But unless you are willing to radically and fundamentally change the burden we place on the State when trying to deprive a person of their life or liberty, it's the price we pay for requiring innocent until proven guilty. Worse men than Z have been found innocent of much worse for lack of the dead witness.

However, I am sure that the prosecution is hoping for folks like you, OTM, on the jury. "There's a dead kid. I don't care about legal elements, burden of proof, or innocent until proven guilty ... You can't kill shoot a kid just b/c you got in his face and he may have over reacted. Hell, for all we know, you started the fight. You better prove to me you didn't start this and that you really were in fear of your life."

Until the EMT and Good testified, I think the prosecution has a good chance of accomplishing (what I presume to be) its goal. Before then, they had Z following and confronting Martin, confusion, a fight and a dead kid with Z ending up on top.

After the EMT and Good, the details changed a bit. Good made it clear there was a point where TM was on top and appeared to be hitting Z with Z clearly yelling for help. The EMT testified that a person in Z's condition and on his back would have blood running down his throat, be likely feeling the effects of brain or concussive injuries and would probably be in reasonable fear for his life. IMHO, These two witnesses provided enough evidence to create a prima facia showing of reasonable fear of life on Z's part -- without the need for Z's testimony -- such that the burden again shifts to the State to prove Z wasn't reasonable in that fear.

Maybe your view prevails OTM. Perhaps, despite the lack of evidence, the State's burden to show who started this fight, and the protections against self-incrimination, maybe emotion prevails and Z's failure to testify dooms him.

Personally, I hope the rule of law prevails and that innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the State through legally admissable evidence remains the standard.

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

OTM - To a certain degree, you are correct and I am in full agreement with you. You cannot resort to deadly force simply b/c you are losing a fight. You can, however, resort to deadly force w/out being guilty of manslaughter or murder if (1) you are losing a fight, (2) in fear of your life - and (3) are not responsible for starting the fight.

If you start a fight, begin to lose it but have no reasonable fear for your life, and kill someone, that's murder 1 (By the way, this is the scenario applicable to my following G84C, him starting a fight, me kicking his butt and him shooting me. So long as all I do is kick his ass in a fight and pull off when he inevitably starts screaming for help).

If you start a fight, begin to lose and have reasonable fear for your life, and use deadly force, that's murder 2 (This is the scenario applicable to my following G84C, him starting a fight, me going beyond just beating him, and him shooting me);

If both parties enter into mutual combat (e.g. - two guys in a bar say "let's take it outside"), one begins to lose but has no reasonable fear for his life and kills his opponent anyway, murder 2.

If both parties enter into mutual combat, one begins to lose, has reasonable fear for his life and kills his opponent, manslaughter.

If a party does not start the fight, begins to lose, then has reasonable fear of his life, and kills his opponent - innocent.

[Disclaimer: I am not a criminal lawyer. The various degrees and factors going into determining the "level" of a homicide are dependent on State law and are not particularly straightforward. The breakdown above is based on some research I had previously done and my understanding of certain basic principles].

Here, there is clear evidence of a fight between Martin and Zimmerman. For any charge to stick, however, the Prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either Zimmerman started the fight or there was an agreement (tacit or otherwise) between Z and TM to enter into mutual combat. Unless I missed it, there is simply no evidence of who started the fight (who moved it from a verbal confrontation to a physical one). There is lots and lots of speculation based on what people believe the parties were thinking or who the type of person they believe TM or Z to be.

I simply don't think the evidence to date does (or ever will) show how this fight started. B/c of that, I don't think, as a matter of law, the prosecution can prove its case. To me, it's that simple. For those who say, well, it's Martin's word against Z and Martin is dead. True enough. But unless you are willing to radically and fundamentally change the burden we place on the State when trying to deprive a person of their life or liberty, it's the price we pay for requiring innocent until proven guilty. Worse men than Z have been found innocent of much worse for lack of the dead witness.

However, I am sure that the prosecution is hoping for folks like you, OTM, on the jury. "There's a dead kid. I don't care about legal elements, burden of proof, or innocent until proven guilty ... You can't kill shoot a kid just b/c you got in his face and he may have over reacted. Hell, for all we know, you started the fight. You better prove to me you didn't start this and that you really were in fear of your life."

Until the EMT and Good testified, I think the prosecution has a good chance of accomplishing (what I presume to be) its goal. Before then, they had Z following and confronting Martin, confusion, a fight and a dead kid with Z ending up on top.

After the EMT and Good, the details changed a bit. Good made it clear there was a point where TM was on top and appeared to be hitting Z with Z clearly yelling for help. The EMT testified that a person in Z's condition and on his back would have blood running down his throat, be likely feeling the effects of brain or concussive injuries and would probably be in reasonable fear for his life. IMHO, These two witnesses provided enough evidence to create a prima facia showing of reasonable fear of life on Z's part -- without the need for Z's testimony -- such that the burden again shifts to the State to prove Z wasn't reasonable in that fear.

Maybe your view prevails OTM. Perhaps, despite the lack of evidence, the State's burden to show who started this fight, and the protections against self-incrimination, maybe emotion prevails and Z's failure to testify dooms him.

Personally, I hope the rule of law prevails and that innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the State through legally admissable evidence remains the standard.

Two figures tussling on the ground then one pulls out a gun, bloody murder!!!!

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

Two figures tussling on the ground then one pulls out a gun, bloody murder!!!!

MAYBE!! It could also be manslaughter or it could be no crime at all. Depends on facts - Something you reached a conclusion on before the opening statements were made. You had the gallows for Z built and the rope waiting. Read the Ox-Bow Incident. I tip my hat to you Major Tetley.

[over the mountain]

thanks for your thoughts joe, rat and everyone. I am going to attempt to do actual work while at work today. unlike yesterday where this trial consumed a large portion of my day.

i do encourage everyone to watch the full 14 mins of zimmerman's video re-enactment.

edit -
"Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda began by asking the judge to strike from the record a statement Detective Chris Serino made Monday in which he said he found credible Zimmerman's account of how he got into a fight with Trayvon Martin. De la Rionda argued the statement was improper because one witness isn't allowed to give an opinion on the credibility of another witness. Defense attorney Mark O'Mara argued it was proper because Serino was vetting Zimmerman's veracity in his probe." Judge strikes detective statements on Zimmerman

are you effing serious. this is a major and well-known no-no. No officer shoudl ever say they believe a person's statements, versions of events or talk about veracity. they are there to only testify as to what they saw and heard from the named parties to the case or in-court testimonial witnesses.

this detective (who i am sure testifies a lot) had to have done so intentionally. this is such a effing no-no and he knows better. id be outraged if i was the DA. just a down right dirty tactic to slip inadmissible evidence in. and what is the cure? a curative instruction from the judge for the jury to disregard the fact that they heard a detective (a position of honor and trust) with years of training and experience say he believes zimmerman!!!

id ask for a mistrial. at least the DA has an appellate issue now.

a defense atty did this to me 2 months ago. i was outraged. he claimed "opps i didnt know judge . . " .. the judge said well, what you said is material blah blah blah but i dont find it intentional so mistrial denied . . . defense attrneys like that and detectives like that are scum . . .

they know exactly what they are doing and know the judge will only give a curative instruction . .

[Gary84Clark]

I agree with Mountain. Fist fight with teenager not life threatening reason to murder said teenager.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

I agree with Mountain. Fist fight with teenager not life threatening reason to murder said teenager.

/end thread

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

Outrage and weed. Smoking weed is not known to encourage aggression.

But it does alter perception, right?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

He started a confrontation with a stranger, that puts his behavior outside the norm. Gentlemen, have any of you read the interview Z gave the cops 2 days later? Apparently Z said he followed the punk to get an address. Evidently he knew Martin was headed somewhere in the complex. He did not think it was a break in artist.

Who threw the first punch? Why? Prove it.

Someone aggressively starting a verbal confrontation with you DOES NOT LET YOU START WAILING ON THEM OR EVEN TOUCH THEM. If you do, you are at fault.

Damn. The willingness to ignore legal requirements, innocent until proven guilty and the State's burden to prove their case when you're offended is mind boggling. Pitchforks and torches all around.

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Who threw the first punch? Why? Prove it.

Someone aggressively starting a verbal confrontation with you DOES NOT LET YOU START WAILING ON THEM OR EVEN TOUCH THEM. If you do, you are at fault.

Damn. The willingness to ignore legal requirements, innocent until proven guilty and the State's burden to prove their case when you're offended is mind boggling. Pitchforks and torches all around.

If you wail on someone, that is assault. You shoot and kill them, that is murder. State knows Z shot and killed Martin that is murder. Unless, Z can prove his life was in danger. Martin was not armed.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

I agree with Mountain. Fist fight with teenager not life threatening reason to murder said teenager.

Bullshit. It most certainly can be. You are either blinded by bias or an idiot.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Bullshit. It most certainly can be. You are either blinded by bias or an idiot.

So i can legally walk around my neighborhood egging on teenagers to assault me and then shoot them in the name of "my life was threatened?"

They are under 18, that the set age to be considered a child and not able to reason as an adult, because of that inept ability to reason they will fight and assault me...so then I can start shooting?

where am i wrong? not trying to be an asshole, just trying to get the reasoning behind my right kill a child

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

So i can legally walk around my neighborhood egging on teenagers to assault me and then shoot them in the name of "my life was threatened?"

Dafuq?

Originally Posted by Chico23231

They are under 18, that the set age to be considered a child and not able to reason as an adult,

How old does 6'2" look?

Originally Posted by Chico23231

because of that inept ability to reason they will fight and assault me...so then I can start shooting?

where am i wrong?

Yeah, once you turn 18 you get that shit squared away immediately.

Originally Posted by Chico23231

not trying to be an asshole, just trying to get the reasoning behind my right kill a child

Your example is laughably extreme, no one is suggesting taunting a toddler and then drawing down, unless it's an exceedingly vicious toddler, obviously.

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Dafuq?



How old does 6'2" look?

Trayvon was 5' 11" the doctor testified today. The rapper Game is 6' 2" and photos of Game are the photos conservatives have been trying to pass off as Trayvon. Stick to facts rat. Fist fights don't give you a right to murder. That is unusual. He was not armed.