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.

[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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

Then Martin would be convicted of murder. cut and dry.

That is not the question I asked. Reading is fundamental.

[Gary84Clark]

I think it is reasonable to say Trayvon feared for his life when Z approached him. That would justify him beating Z up, if that happened? They have a video where the police are with Z in his interview, its on abcnews.com. They tell Z if you had identified yourself to this child then we would not be here.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

That would justify him beating Z up, if that happened?

In what manner? To ask for directions? To ask him his name and his intentions? To tell him to go back where came from? To tell him he had a gun and was going to shoot him? To call him a n**** and make him cry? Give us, oh knower of all things, the exact situation. Not a general happenstance.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

I think it is reasonable to say Trayvon feared for his life when Z approached him. That would justify him beating Z up, if that happened? They have a video where the police are with Z in his interview, its on abcnews.com. They tell Z if you had identified yourself to this child then we would not be here.

Wow. Just wow. You're either a hypocrite or a f***'ing barbarian.

First, show me the law that says Z had to identify himself. Regarldless of whether he "should have", show me the law requiring him to do so. Hindsight is 20/20.

TM justifiably feared for his life? Really?? Show me where ANYWHERE in the conversation with Jeanette that TM evidenced a fear of his life or even imminent physical harm.

BUT ... accepting your premise arguendo -- following and verbally confronting TM legitimately put TM in fear for his life but TM having Z pinned to the ground and inflicting the injuries evidenced by TM did not put Z in reasonable fear of his own.

Don't look now, you're double standard is showing.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

First, show me the law that says Z had to identify himself. Regarldless of whether he "should have", show me the law requiring him to do so. Hindsight is 20/20.

TM justifiably feared for his life? Really?? Show me where ANYWHERE in the conversation with Jeanette that TM evidenced a fear of his life or even imminent physical harm.

.

i think only a detective or consultant said he should have identified himself and this wouldnt have happened. im guessing that is where this notion came from.

TM would not have to be in fear of death to justify using non-lethal self defense. He would only have to be in fear of bodily harm. having an adult follow you and corner you would put a person in reas fear that the person following you wanted to fight.

to justify lethal self-defense on an unarmed combatant is just not acceptable to me in this situation. maybe if its chuck norris on an 80 yr old, but not a 29 yr old and a person who just turned 17.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

i think only a detective or consultant said he should have identified himself and this wouldnt have happened. im guessing that is where this notion came from.

TM would not have to be in fear of death to justify using non-lethal self defense. He would only have to be in fear of bodily harm. having an adult follow you and corner you would put a person in reas fear that the person following you wanted to fight.

to justify lethal self-defense on an unarmed combatant is just not acceptable to me in this situation. maybe if its chuck norris on an 80 yr old, but not a 29 yr old and a person who just turned 17.

If you're getting your ass beat and fear for your life...forget how you got there because it is irrelevant to your decision making at that point...then shooting someone who is unarmed is definitely in play. I know I would. A gun is reasonably equal force to "Oh no this guy is going to kill me with his bare hands". The real question as to this part of the trial is whether Z had real and reasonable cause to fear for his life. JR where does the burden stand on this type of issue. Does Z have to prove he was reasonably in fear or does the prosecution have to prove he wasn't?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

JR where does the burden stand on this type of issue. Does Z have to prove he was reasonably in fear or does the prosecution have to prove he wasn't?

Self-defence is an affirmative defense meaning that the burden is initially on Z to assert but, once asserted and a prima facia case made, it is up to the State to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, Z doesn't need to testify or put on any evidence of the issue, Z need only claim that the evidence presented by the prosecution "fairly generates" the issue of self defense.

Maryland law on the issue:
A jury instruction improperly placed the burden of persuasion on the issue of self defense upon defendant because self-defense was fairly generated by the evidence and the burden was upon the State to negate self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

A More Detailed Statement:
The burden of initially producing "some evidence" on the issue of mitigation or self-defense (or of relying upon evidence produced by the State) sufficient to give rise to a jury issue with respect to these defenses, is properly cast upon the defendant. Once the issue has been generated by the evidence, however, the State must carry the ultimate burden of persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt on that issue. ... [T]he Court recognized that many states do require the defendant to make a threshold showing that there is "some evidence" indicating that the defendant acted in the heat of passion before the prosecution is required to negate this element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, the prosecution need not in the first instance introduce evidence of facts which negate the existence of mitigating circumstances or of self-defense; and if the defendant adduces no evidence of these matters, no issue of their existence is raised in the case and no jury instructions regarding mitigating circumstances or self-defense need be given. [emphasis mine]

Florida law is probably very similar and I would suggest that "the issue [of self-defense] has been generated by the [prosecution's] evidence". Thus, at this point, it is the State's burden to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Z's subjective belief was unreasonable. Again, I just don't see that.

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Wow. Just wow. You're either a hypocrite or a f***'ing barbarian.

First, show me the law that says Z had to identify himself. Regarldless of whether he "should have", show me the law requiring him to do so. Hindsight is 20/20.

TM justifiably feared for his life? Really?? Show me where ANYWHERE in the conversation with Jeanette that TM evidenced a fear of his life or even imminent physical harm.

BUT ... accepting your premise arguendo -- following and verbally confronting TM legitimately put TM in fear for his life but TM having Z pinned to the ground and inflicting the injuries evidenced by TM did not put Z in reasonable fear of his own.

Don't look now, you're double standard is showing.

Calling me a barbarian is not gonna prove your point. I am making the same argument you are making. If it is resonablee to shoot someone because you feared for your life, then it is resaonable to punch someon if you fear for your life. A strange man approaching you with a gun is life threatening. See, Joe I think you may have a double standard going here. What applies to Martin equally applies to Z.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

Calling me a barbarian is not gonna prove your point. I am making the same argument you are making. If it is resonablee to shoot someone because you feared for your life, then it is resaonable to punch someon if you fear for your life. A strange man approaching you with a gun is life threatening. See, Joe I think you may have a double standard going here. What applies to Martin equally applies to Z.

Fine, but Z is charged with the crime and the State has to prove all the requisite elements of the crime they allege he committed. It's not enough to say TM was not guilty the State has to demonstrate, with evidence, that Z is guilty.

In your outline above, because the evidence generated to date indicates a claim for self-defence, the allegation that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that all TM did was "punch someone".