Trayvon Martin Case

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

Let's just convict on reasonable assumption, not acquit through reasonable doubt. Problem solved.

That certainly is saden1's approach.

[saden1]

You should stop and walk away with semblance of dignity. You know damn well or at least should know the defendants statements are insufficient evidence in an affirmative defense claim. On top of that you didnt seem to think earlier there is a burden on the defense and now you're claiming to have said there is all along?

I am not a lawyer but I do possess the ability to think critically and unlike RedskinRat I dont swallow.

[FRPLG]

This really isn't hard to understand. Knowing full well the JR has repeatedly explained this I hesitate to even take a shot at it but here goes.

1. GZ must assert self-defense. ~ he has (police statements)
2. GZ must present evidence (testimony, circumstantial, etc..) to formulate a reasonable self-defense claim ~ he has (police statements plus a boat load of evidence has been presented)....here is where the wheels seem to be falling off for a few. This doesn't mean that ALL the evidence presented (weighed for believability and relevance) must add up to self-defense. It simply means the evidence presented, seen only favorably for GZ, must add up to self-defense. It doesn't matter whether you or anyone believes Good or finds the restimony of the EMT relevant, what matters is that what they say (and other evidence) presents a reasonable scenario of self-defense. Bam...face-value case made. It can't be argued. There has been evidence, that when seen only favorably for GZ, obviously adds up to self-defense. Someone explain how it doesn't.
3. Jury instruction WILL be made to adjudicate the merits of the self-defense claim.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

You should stop and walk away with semblance of dignity. You know damn well or at least should know the defendants statements are insufficient evidence in an affirmative defense claim. On top of that you didnt seem to think earlier there is a burden on the defense and now you're claiming to have said there is all along?

I am not a lawyer but I do possess the ability to think critically and unlike RedskinRat I dont swallow.

Apparently, however, you do not possess the ability to read. Sipple v. State, 972 So. 2d 912, 916 (2007):

In order to establish a prima facie case of self-defense, the defendant does not have to testify at trial; his or her statement to the police admitted into evidence may be sufficient. See Peterka v. State, 890 So. 2d 219, 229 (Fla. 2004) ("We conclude that in light of Peterka's statement to police, trial counsel presented a viable, coherent defense strategy of either self-defense or unintentional killing."), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1118, 125 S. Ct. 2911, 162 L. Ed. 2d 301 (2005); Henry v. State, 862 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2003); Wright. Based on Sipple's statement to the police, which was admitted into evidence, we conclude that Sipple met his burden of presenting a prima facie case of self-defense, which required the trial judge to properly instruct the jury as to that defense.

Where oh where is there one single, on-point Florida case that says "the defendant's statements are insufficient evidence in an affirmative defense claim."? Because the Sipple case says exactly the opposite [BTW - see the "cert denied" descriptive in the Peterka cite means the Supremes had a chance to reverse but didn't, just an FYI for you next Holiday Inn stay]. Bring the law b/c so far all you've brought is bullshit.

As to your claim "you didn't seem to think earlier there is a burden on the defense and now you're claiming to have said there is all along". There isn't a "burden" as you seem to be defining it. Rather, what I have consistently said was that, in this case, GZ doesn't have to prove anything b/c a prima facia showing of the self-defense claim has been made by the prosecution. That is an absolutely correct statement of the law and you have yet to cite one relevant case or statute to dispute it. I have conceded that, if the prosecution's case had not provided the prima facia evidence for such his claim, GZ would have the "burden" of the making a minimal showing. Even then, and contrary to your continuous assertions, however, it is not his burden to prove a reasonable doubt but, rather, simply to create a question of fact as to the existence of reasonable doubt. That's the f'ing law and nothing - NOTHING - you have brought to the table contradicts that except your whiny cries of "nuh -uhhh".

I do this for a living and will beat on you all day just b/c it's fun to show your bias and intentional ignorance. Quote an on point Florida case, statute or regulation that supports you assertion and overturns Sipple, Jenkins and a host of other Florida case law. You can't. You got nothing but ignorance, bias and petulance left.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

This really isn't hard to understand. Knowing full well the JR has repeatedly explained this I hesitate to even take a shot at it but here goes.

1. GZ must assert self-defense. ~ he has (police statements)
2. GZ must present evidence (testimony, circumstantial, etc..) to formulate a reasonable self-defense claim ~ he has (police statements plus a boat load of evidence has been presented)....here is where the wheels seem to be falling off for a few. This doesn't mean that ALL the evidence presented (weighed for believability and relevance) must add up to self-defense. It simply means the evidence presented, seen only favorably for GZ, must add up to self-defense. It doesn't matter whether you or anyone believes Good or finds the restimony of the EMT relevant, what matters is that what they say (and other evidence) presents a reasonable scenario of self-defense. Bam...face-value case made. It can't be argued. There has been evidence, that when seen only favorably for GZ, obviously adds up to self-defense. Someone explain how it doesn't.
3. Jury instruction WILL be made to adjudicate the merits of the self-defense claim.

Close, but, in light of Sipple, I don't think your step 2 is necessary - GZ's statement to the police is all that's needed. Bottom line, a "prima facia" showing requires only a very, very minimal production - for all practical purposes, it's the lowest standard of evidence out there.

Also, it's not that GZ has to present certain evidence, it's that the evidence actually submitted - regardless of its origin, "when seen only favorably for GZ ... adds up to self-defense". The "regardless of origin" is apparently a huge stumbling block for saden1.

Finally, under Sipple, the cases cited therein and subsequent case law citing Sipple, the instruction to the jury requires them "to adjudicate the merits of the self-defense claim" such that they must find that the prosecution has eliminated all reasonable doubt on one or more of the requisite elements of self-defense. If they do not believe the State has done so, they must acquit.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

So those saying manslaughter, you have no doubts whatsoever that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation and wasn't in fear for his life.

Not asking if that's what you think is true. I am simply asking if you believe it absolutely could not have happened any differently.

There is no doubt in my mind its manslaugher. Negligent killing. I also believe in Zim's mind stand your ground qualified his actions. Not being talked enough in the case, but that was Zim's justification. Zim thought he had the right to even use force to protect his neighborhood. People need to understand, he's not a normal, reasonable person. After he actually killed Trayvon, only then did he think, oh no I shouldnt have done this; up until that point he thought he had every right to do what he did. The law has to be the line in the sand, his negligence and direct actions lead to the death of a completely innocent kid. Remember Trayvon did nothing...this wasnt a case of a kid breaking in cars or houses or dealing drugs etc.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by saden1

Joe, please come to your senses. You are making a mockery of our legal system.

Smith, et al., v. United States | LII / Legal Information Institute

Smith v. United States | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Game...set...match!

LMAO. These two posts are too good not to respond to. For the post above, I was going to respond with, "Do you understand in what way 5th amendment rights apply in this case, saden?" But why try to provide some reasoning to your thinking myself? Saden, how does this case you cite applies to the Zimmerman case?

Originally Posted by saden1

LOL...I may have to file a formal complain against you with the ABA. You certainly dont seem to know the law.

Here is something I googled and found posted on a Florida law firm's website that should eat away at your credibility.

Florida Criminal Law Defenses | Criminal Affirmative Defenses

OMG. I saw this website earlier and figured it was so in favor of Zimmerman it would be dismissed as too biased. Saden, like the prosecution in this case, you keep giving victory to your opponent. In this example, you don't understand that not all affirmative defenses are alike.

From the website you brought up yourself:

Florida Law on Self-Defense : Use of Deadly and Non Deadly Force

What Evidence is Required to Raise a Self-Defense Claim in Florida?

The defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense in Florida when there is any evidence to support the claim. This is a low standard and even a “scintilla” of evidence will be sufficient, even if the self-defense theory is extremely weak or improbable. Self-defense may even be inferred from the State’s evidence without the Defendant or a defense witness ever taking the stand.


Read further, I think the website you brought up pretty much addresses and then invalidates every argument you've made in this thread, saden.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

There is no doubt in my mind its manslaugher. Negligent killing. I also believe in Zim's mind stand your ground qualified his actions. Not being talked enough in the case, but that was Zim's justification. Zim thought he had the right to even use force to protect his neighborhood. People need to understand, he's not a normal, reasonable person. After he actually killed Trayvon, only then did he think, oh no I shouldnt have done this; up until that point he thought he had every right to do what he did. The law has to be the line in the sand, his negligence and direct actions lead to the death of a completely innocent kid. Remember Trayvon did nothing...this wasnt a case of a kid breaking in cars or houses or dealing drugs etc.

You have beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman actually provoked violence against himself? If that's your opinion, it is what it is, but why are you so sure of that? SMH at the idea 84clark has expressed that getting out of your car and following someone is legally reason enough to be attacked.

The rest, good lord, where do you get the idea that what you said above is how Zimmerman justified shooting Martin? And what Zimmerman actually thought afterwards?

Zimmerman claimed his self-justification was that he called for help and nobody came, and that Martin had reached for Zimmerman's gun (not grabbed it, reached for it). This might or might not be true, but how did you come to be so sure otherwise?

You seem to ascribe all kind of bad thoughts to Zimmerman with little evidence, while saying you're positive the guy talking about "the creepy ass cracker" did nothing.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

You have beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman actually provoked violence against himself? If that's your opinion, it is what it is, but why are you so sure of that? SMH at the idea 84clark has expressed that getting out of your car and following someone is legally reason enough to be attacked.

The rest, good lord, where do you get the idea that what you said above is how Zimmerman justified shooting Martin? And what Zimmerman actually thought afterwards?

Zimmerman claimed his self-justification was that he called for help and nobody came, and that Martin had reached for Zimmerman's gun (not grabbed it, reached for it). This might or might not be true, but how did you come to be so sure otherwise?

The most important piece of evidence is the call. Alot people giving Zim too much credit. Yes from what I see and hear from Zim, Im sure of that.

So as long as I yell help, I can shoot someone? Thats justification? Ill remember that.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

(snip).

JoeR, could the prosecution's plan all along have been to overcharge, get a jury that might be predisposed to look for a compromise ("to make everybody happy"), to get a manslaughter charge?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

There is no doubt in my mind its manslaugher. Negligent killing. I also believe in Zim's mind stand your ground qualified his actions. Not being talked enough in the case, but that was Zim's justification. Zim thought he had the right to even use force to protect his neighborhood. People need to understand, he's not a normal, reasonable person. After he actually killed Trayvon, only then did he think, oh no I shouldnt have done this; up until that point he thought he had every right to do what he did. The law has to be the line in the sand, his negligence and direct actions lead to the death of a completely innocent kid. Remember Trayvon did nothing...this wasnt a case of a kid breaking in cars or houses or dealing drugs etc.

To be clear, I understand that is what you think happened and why. I also agree that it is a reasonable explanation of what happened that night.

My question to you is - Is it the only reasonable explanation of what happened that night? For me, I just don't know with any degree of certainty who started the fight and I believe that, at the moment he fired the gun, Zimmerman really was reasonably in fear of his life. Are you saying that my belief is completely irrational and has no support from the evidence submitted?

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

The most important piece of evidence is the call. Alot people giving Zim too much credit. Yes from what I see and hear from Zim, Im sure of that.

So as long as I yell help, I can shoot someone? Thats justification? Ill remember that.

Well, do you think Zimmerman would have still shot Martin if someone had come to help? That's one risk Zimmerman was taking in calling for help if he wanted to shoot Martin, right?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

JoeR, could the prosecution's plan all along have been to overcharge, get a jury that might be predisposed to look for a compromise ("to make everybody happy"), to get a manslaughter charge?

Yes. They would not be the first and they won't be the last to do so. Of course, in doing so, they run the risk of promising more than they can prove and creating an expectation from the jury that they cannot match.

I did not watch the openings. The best indication that this is what they did would be how they approached the issue there. If they did a "soft sell" of the murder 2 "reckless acts" facts at that point while emphasizing the manslaughter "negligent act" facts, then that was likely the plan all along.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

... Read further, I think the website you brought up pretty much addresses and then invalidates every argument you're made in this thread, saden.

Objective analysis, critical thinking and knowledge of the law have not been saden1's strong suits at any point in this thread.

Bias, demagoguery and ignorance, however ...

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

So as long as I yell help, I can shoot someone? Thats justification? Ill remember that.

I won't insult your intelligence by asserting all Zimmerman did was innocently follow a guy he thought to be was suspicious. Please don't insult mine by asserting that Zimm yelling for help is the only evidence in support of Zimm's claim of reasonably being in fear of his life.