Trayvon Martin Case

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

Trayvon Martin Case: Exclusive Surveillance Video of George Zimmerman - ABC News

Its tough to make out the face even though it doesnt look hurt, but because of a pretty recent hair cut the back of the head is pretty clear, no injury what so ever.

You would expect to see some type of first aid administered to the head from the description of his supposed wounds.

Im just not buying what this guy is selling, think he's lying and this supposed attack wasnt much of anything but trying to CYA tall tale after-the-fact

[JoeRedskin]

Been thinking over the Florida immunity law (the one saying, if you assert self-defense, you can't be arrested without proof that the "self-defense" defense is inapplicable) and why I find it morally bothersome. It appears to change the claim of "self-defense" from an affirmative defense to a presumptive defense and, in doing so, lessens the value of life.

As an affirmative defense, "self-defense" is something I have to prove in order to be innocent of murder. If I fail to prove my actions satisfied the elements of self-defense, my defense fails and I may be liable for first or second degree murder. As such, I better be damn sure of myself before resorting to deadly force in self-defense. Simply put, as an affirmative defense, the philosophical underpinning of the "self-defense" claim is that, if you kill someone, the presumption is you are wrong to do so.

The presumption that it is wrong to kill someone is eliminated, however, when the claim of "self-defense" is converted into a presumptive defense as it appears to be in Florida. As a presumptive defense, I don't need to prove I acted in self-defense, I just need to assert that I was doing so. Once asserted, it becomes the State's burden to find enough evidence to prove I that I was not acting in self-defense. As such, when (like here) the evidence is just too conflicting to say one way or another with any reasonable degree of certainty, the State will almost always fail to overcome the presumption. As a result, the possibility that a person wrongly lost their life will never even make it to a jury.

Essentially, as a presumptive defense, the philosophical underpinning of the "self-defense" claim is that killing someone is not assumed to be wrong. Rather, Floridians have said that the right to defend your person is primary even if sometimes innocent people get killed. I am pretty sure I have a problem with that.

[JoeRedskin]

Quick primer on the degrees of murder - First degree murder is traditional murder - felony murder & pre-meditated murder. Second degree murder is simply Murder 1 with an imperfect defense (such as asserting self defense with deadly force when you had no right to use it) or, alternatively, death caused by gross negligence and reckless disregard for others (think firing a gun into a crowded room - you may not have intended to kill anyone, but you damn well should have known you were likely to do so). Manslaughter is simply the negligent/accidental killing of another.

Generally, the distingushing feature between second degree murder and manslaughter is that, in Murder 2, you admit to the intentional killing of another but wrongly assert you had the right to do so. In manslaughter, however, you deny that you intended to kill the person and assert it was an accident. In this case, Zimmerman has said "I killed him in self-defense." Meaning that he intended to kill Martin and that the death was not accidental. As a result, it would appear to me that the State is stuck with 2nd degree murder or nothing.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Its tough to make out the face even though it doesnt look hurt, but because of a pretty recent hair cut the back of the head is pretty clear, no injury what so ever.

You would expect to see some type of first aid administered to the head from the description of his supposed wounds.

Im just not buying what this guy is selling, think he's lying and this supposed attack wasnt much of anything but trying to CYA tall tale after-the-fact

Is the homeowner who witnessed Martin beating Zimmerman also lying?

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Is the homeowner who witnessed Martin beating Zimmerman also lying?

Could've mixed the 2 up? How far was the homeowner from the incident? Was it practically on their doorstep or were they like 5 or 6 houses down? Could make a significant difference and mistaken identity. Around 7pm and raining, so it was probably somewhat dark.

Possibly? I'm sure odder witness mistakes have happened...

[JoeRedskin]

As I understand it, the fight was on his front yard and he was very clear that guy A was on top of and beating guy B. He looked away/went for phone, heard a gunshot and then saw "the guy who had been on top" lying on the ground.

A man who witnessed part of the altercation contacted authorities.

"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.

John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.

"And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."

Trayvon Martin shot and killed in neighborhood altercation

The witness only wanted to be identified as "John," and didn't not want to be shown on camera.

His statements to police were instrumental, because police backed up Zimmerman's claims, saying those screams on the 911 call are those of Zimmerman.

Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman

Sounds like he was pretty sure of what he saw and was close enough to speak to the two while they were fighting.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Is the homeowner who witnessed Martin beating Zimmerman also lying?

In your line of work, whats more important physical evidence vs. witness statement? I think the physical evidence. Lets be honest, that video evidence directly after the fight shows no signs of a fight. No bruising or blood to the face, back of the head, no ripped clothing, doesnt look physically exhasted, etc. A broken nose or gash to the back of the head should be noticable.

Im calling bullsh*t on Zimmy. Going to ground and rolling around is alot different from some a child on top of a grown medium to large man physically beating him. Alot different.

[firstdown]

I'll have to say I keep going back and forth on this as new stuff comes out. The past few days it seemed Zim acted in self defense and now after seeing the video I question that. I do wonder about the witness and what they said they saw. I know in my business the out side witness hold more ground then the the people involved.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I'll have to say I keep going back and forth on this as new stuff comes out. The past few days it seemed Zim acted in self defense and now after seeing the video I question that. I do wonder about the witness and what they said they saw. I know in my business the out side witness hold more ground then the the people involved.

Yeah I agree. I was against Zimmerman at first, then I thought Zimmerman had a good case, and now there's video that could possibly prove Zimmerman was lying. I haven't seen the video but if it's true and he didn't suffer any injuries than I don't know what to believe. I'm just going to wait until all the facts come out.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

In your line of work, whats more important physical evidence vs. witness statement? I think the physical evidence. Lets be honest, that video evidence directly after the fight shows no signs of a fight. No bruising or blood to the face, back of the head, no ripped clothing, doesnt look physically exhasted, etc. A broken nose or gash to the back of the head should be noticable.

Im calling bullsh*t on Zimmy. Going to ground and rolling around is alot different from some a child on top of a grown medium to large man physically beating him. Alot different.

Depends on a lot of factors. How reliable is the physical evidence, how reliable is the witness statement. I have more than once seen juries side with the eyewitness account of something rather than video evidence.

It's clear you have made up your mind in this matter and, barring incontrovertable evidence that Martin was laying in wait and attacking Zimmerman from behind, you won't even consider the possibility that Martin may have been the aggressor or the person who escalated the confrontation into a physical altercation. I get it - Martin is a "child", Zimmerman is a coward with a gun so he MUST be guilty of murder. Couldn't happen any other way.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by mooby

Yeah I agree. I was against Zimmerman at first, then I thought Zimmerman had a good case, and now there's video that could possibly prove Zimmerman was lying. I haven't seen the video but if it's true and he didn't suffer any injuries than I don't know what to believe. I'm just going to wait until all the facts come out.

I looked at the video and you have a pretty good shot of his head with short, short crew cut (really like a 5:00 shadow on his head) and I couldn't see any lacerations or bandages. Zimmerman's lawyer says there was a broken nose. If so, let's some hospital records, same for the lacerations. I think he was admitted to the hospital at some point (I don't remember). If so, their records would reflect any treatment.

The more I think about it, the less I like the Florida law. We can sit here and parse the evidence and second guess it's meaning & weight. Many, like Chico, will reach conclusions as to guilt or innocence based on conjecture and/or speculation. Under the Florida law, however, it is likely that no jury will ever have all the evidence laid before them, see the various doucments, hear the recordings, see videos, and hear the various witnesses testify under oath subject to cross-examination so that they can weigh the credibility of them.

A person was killed and the law is not holding anyone - not the Zimmerman or Martin - accountable for the events of that evening. To me, just as is Martin's death, that's a real tragedy.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Depends on a lot of factors. How reliable is the physical evidence, how reliable is the witness statement. I have more than once seen juries side with the eyewitness account of something rather than video evidence.

It's clear you have made up your mind in this matter and, barring incontrovertable evidence that Martin was laying in wait and attacking Zimmerman from behind, you won't even consider the possibility that Martin may have been the aggressor or the person who escalated the confrontation into a physical altercation. I get it - Martin is a "child", Zimmerman is a coward with a gun so he MUST be guilty of murder. Couldn't happen any other way.

Joe, Im just forming my opinion like everyone else. I think Zimmerman could have easily avoided killing Martin, I think he had several opportunities to do so. Im not buying his life was in danger.

Clearly if Zimmerman displayed physical injuries of being beat, I would be less inclined to say he was lying. Im keeping an open mind and appreciate your perspective.

I worked in a Court Service Unit, mom works directly for a CA and have a good friend who is a prosecutor up in Fairfax Va so always been interest in crime. Plus ive had some run ins when i was younger

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Joe, Im just forming my opinion like everyone else. I think Zimmerman could have easily avoided killing Martin, I think he had several opportunities to do so. Im not buying his life was in danger.
Clearly if Zimmerman displayed physical injuries of being beat, I would be less inclined to say he was lying. Im keeping an open mind and appreciate your perspective.

I worked in a Court Service Unit, mom works directly for a CA and have a good friend who is a prosecutor up in Fairfax Va so always been interest in crime. Plus ive had some run ins when i was younger

Fair enough. Under the law in Florida, however, "not buying it" is not enough to convict him of anything. The evidence has to prove he is lying about self-defense.

To me, right now, it's still could be either way. Having been a young, male teenager myself and having some run-ins with them in my neighborhood, I have no doubt that what Zimmerman says happened could have, in fact, happened. The operative word being "could". [EDIT: By saying this, I am in no way trying to imply Martin was a gang-banger thug. He have been a good kid in bad mood, a little hot-tempered that day, w/e, and just got rubbed the wrong way. There was a time in my youth when a cross look got a challenge from me and I was always ready to throw down - and did more than once].

To be clear, I think Zimmerman exercised bad judgment in a lot of ways that night and, with better judgment, could have avoided the whole situation. I don't think, however, bad judgment necessarily makes you a bad person - which, to me, it seems you have concluded about Zimmerman. Further, one person's bad judgment doesn't excuse the bad judgment of others which, if he attacked first, Martin may have exercised.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Joe, Im just forming my opinion like everyone else. I think Zimmerman could have easily avoided killing Martin, I think he had several opportunities to do so. Im not buying his life was in danger.

Clearly if Zimmerman displayed physical injuries of being beat, I would be less inclined to say he was lying. Im keeping an open mind and appreciate your perspective.

I worked in a Court Service Unit, mom works directly for a CA and have a good friend who is a prosecutor up in Fairfax Va so always been interest in crime. Plus ive had some run ins when i was younger

Younger your only 35. I hope that's not considered old.

[mlmdub130]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I looked at the video and you have a pretty good shot of his head with short, short crew cut (really like a 5:00 shadow on his head) and I couldn't see any lacerations or bandages. Zimmerman's lawyer says there was a broken nose. If so, let's some hospital records, same for the lacerations. I think he was admitted to the hospital at some point (I don't remember). If so, their records would reflect any treatment.

The more I think about it, the less I like the Florida law. We can sit here and parse the evidence and second guess it's meaning & weight. Many, like Chico, will reach conclusions as to guilt or innocence based on conjecture and/or speculation. Under the Florida law, however, it is likely that no jury will ever have all the evidence laid before them, see the various doucments, hear the recordings, see videos, and hear the various witnesses testify under oath subject to cross-examination so that they can weigh the credibility of them.

A person was killed and the law is not holding anyone - not the Zimmerman or Martin - accountable for the events of that evening. To me, just as is Martin's death, that's a real tragedy.

In my opinion the only positive that can come from this tragedy would be severe modifications to the stand your ground law. As I have said before my opinion based on a confrontation between a unarmed teen and an armed adult resulting in the unarmed teen dying should be murder. And when I say that, that is coming from someone with a lot of training with firearms and a respect for the lethal potential of a loaded gun. But based on the "facts" so far it seems like Zimmerman broke no law in the state of Florida. Hopefully that law will change, and I wish the media would focus on that rather than sensationalizing each of the persons involved. Right now it seems like everyone would rather quiver over who is right or wrong in this case rather than trying to prevent something like this from ever happening again.

Just out of curiosity what kind of law do you practice?