Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Debating with the enemy


Trayvon Martin Case

Debating with the enemy


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-09-2013, 03:41 PM   #811
New HC, new hope!
 
RedskinRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: I'm in LA, trick!
Posts: 8,700
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
FYI - GZ's forensic expert is testifying. Very good stuff. Rat, you'll like it - he just blows off anything unprovable through the scientific method ... the guy is practically robotic.
It's been a fascinating case, I have enjoyed watching the Defense do their thing, except for that opening.
RedskinRat is offline  

Advertisements
Old 07-09-2013, 05:01 PM   #812
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 52
Posts: 9,298
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
In a self-defense case it is upon the claimant to prove they were in fact defending themselves from imminent danger. Who stalked who and who fired what and who died is self-evident and all the state has to show in a self-defense case is that there is probable cause that Zimmerman was looking for trouble and acted recklessly to get a conviction. Can they get a 2nd degree conviction? Maybe. Can they get manslaughter? Absolutely.
Wrong, wrong, wrong wroooong. Wrong wrong wrong wrooooong. [Y'all know the clip].

I already covered this once, so let's review:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
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.
...

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.
So, to be sure, I looked it up. As I assumed, Florida law is essentially the same:

"In a criminal prosecution the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts from the State and, as a result, when self-defense is properly at issue, the state effectively has the burden to prove that defendant was not acting in self-defense during the commission of the criminal act."

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
The defense hasn't proven that Zimmerman was defending himself. All they have shown is that he sustained a bruised head and bloody nose after stalking the victim and an altercation ensued. I don't believe that to be sufficient evidence for letting him walk.
Again, ignoring your assumptions of facts not proven and your speculative characterizations ...

ZIMMERMAN DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE HE ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE. THE STATE MUST PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT HE DID NOT . Innocent until proven guilty - beyond a reasonable doubt. Lordy, how many times do I have to restate this simple, fundamental principal of our legal system.

By the way, and to preempt any silly assertions that "Well, GZ's self-defense isn't 'properly at issue' because he hasn't proved it" remark from saden or someone else - if the State thought that a prima facia claim of self-defense claim wasn't generated by the evidence, they would have brought a murder 1 charge against GZ. By bringing the murder 2 charge instead, the State acknowledges that the evidence has generated a self-defense claim but they assert it was not valid. As such, they must now prove its invalidity BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

Sorry for "yelling" but the wilfull ignorance being exhibited in this thread is getting me testy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
You cant create a situation and then peripherally claim self-defense.Zimmerman Case: The Five Principles of the Law of Self Defense
Again, you're assertion that GZ "create[d] a situation" glosses over the key issues of the case that are in dispute. Further, the claim of self-defense is not "peripheral" - what an idiotic statement. It is central to the events of that evening and sufficiently in dispute so as to be acknowledged by the State's indictment.

All you are doing is restating your initial bias and speculation and throwing in an extra helping of ignorance ... but, hey, that's sounds like an excellent basis to put people in jail.
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.
JoeRedskin is offline  
Old 07-09-2013, 05:20 PM   #813
New HC, new hope!
 
RedskinRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: I'm in LA, trick!
Posts: 8,700
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

What a beat-down!

May I suggest, saden1, you quit while you're behind? You're looking more and more like a one legged man in an ass kicking contest.

This is almost as much fun as the actual trial.
RedskinRat is offline  
Old 07-09-2013, 05:44 PM   #814
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 52
Posts: 9,298
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Here's the Florida pattern jury instructions on the issue:

Quote:
A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent, one, imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or, two, the imminent commission of aggravated battery against himself or another.

* * *

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense, you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty. However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe the defendant is innocent. The presumption stays with the defendant, as to each material allegation in the information, through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt. To overcome the defendant's presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of proving the crime with which the defendant is charged was committed and the defendant is the person who committed the crime. The defendant is not required to present evidence or prove anything.
emphasis mine.
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.
JoeRedskin is offline  
Old 07-09-2013, 05:50 PM   #815
Playmaker
 
mlmpetert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Richmond
Posts: 3,261
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
I am saying noway he walks, either it's a mistrial or guilty. I'll take that $25 dollar bet...if he walks you win, he is convicted of manslaughter or above I win, if it's a mistrial it's a wash.

Can I get in on the action?

Same as above, except for $50.
__________________
mlmpetert is offline  
Old 07-09-2013, 10:16 PM   #816
MVP
 
NC_Skins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,617
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

One of the comments from a article about the trial.


Quote:
The reason the defense is only going to take half the time is because the prosecution did half the work for them.

Reading the stuff Joe has said up here, I think that guy's comment hit the nail on the head.
__________________
"So let me get this straight. We have the event of the year on TV with millions watching around the world... and people want a punt, pass, and kick competition to be the halftime entertainment?? Folks, don't quit your day jobs."- Matty
NC_Skins is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 11:14 AM   #817
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 52
Posts: 9,298
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

As an aside, today I was assigned my third tort defense case of the year involving a teenager crossing a major highway at a non-intersection and being struck and killed. Their ages were 14, 16 and the most recent a 17 year old homecoming queen. Each was tragic, each involved bad decision making by several people and each was avoidable by the teen. In each case, criminal charges against the driver were considered and rejected. In the case of the 14 year old, the driver was prosecuted for a DUI and spent 3 months in prison but was not charged with manslaughter b/c the police believed the accident to be unavoidable i.e. even had he not been intoxicated he would have hit the child.

Martin's death was a tragedy, people want someone to blame. Is Zimmerman civilly liable? Maybe. A wrongful death claim will be filed (just as it was in OJ). In that case, Zimmerman will bear the burden of proving self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

I only bring this out to demonstrate that death and tragedy happen. Often. Too often. Not all result in show trials. You think the mother of the 14 year-old killed by a drunk driver had no problem being told "Sorry ma'am, we know your son was killed by a drunk driver but, unfortunately, it was your son's own fault"? I guarrantee you she did.

Here, the question is do we know enough to imprison an person. As society, we have said that, regardless of the tragic results, we will not compound tragedies by acting out of vengance. Instead, and in order to temper our need for vengance, we have a system that is designed (although it does not always work that way) such that we will allow 99 guilty men to go free rather than subject one innocent man to imprisonment. It often leads to deeply unsatisfying results but it is, to me, the right way for a society to mete out punishment. Otherwise, mob rule, lynchings and vigalantism will become the substitute for "justice".

Further, there is recourse for those harmed by others, we as a society may not punish a suspected criminal but they can be sued by the person they have wronged. Often such suits are pointless b/c the suspected criminal has no assets, but, in a case such as this, there is the opportunity for real recourse through civil action.

Sorry for the rambling. A beautiful young woman was killed b/c several people (including her) made bad decisions. It simply saddens me and gets me all philosophical.

Hug your kids everyday. At least twice.
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.

Last edited by JoeRedskin; 07-10-2013 at 11:45 AM.
JoeRedskin is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 11:35 AM   #818
New HC, new hope!
 
RedskinRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: I'm in LA, trick!
Posts: 8,700
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
Is Martin civilly liable? Maybe. A wrongful death claim will be filed (just as it was in OJ). In that case, Martin will bear the burden of proving self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
You meant Zimmerman, JR?
RedskinRat is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 11:44 AM   #819
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 52
Posts: 9,298
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

^^ Yes. Thanks. Will edit for correction.
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.
JoeRedskin is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 11:47 AM   #820
Registered User
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,069
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
Wrong, wrong, wrong wroooong. Wrong wrong wrong wrooooong. [Y'all know the clip].

I already covered this once, so let's review:



So, to be sure, I looked it up. As I assumed, Florida law is essentially the same:

"In a criminal prosecution the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts from the State and, as a result, when self-defense is properly at issue, the state effectively has the burden to prove that defendant was not acting in self-defense during the commission of the criminal act."



Again, ignoring your assumptions of facts not proven and your speculative characterizations ...

ZIMMERMAN DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE HE ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE. THE STATE MUST PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT HE DID NOT . Innocent until proven guilty - beyond a reasonable doubt. Lordy, how many times do I have to restate this simple, fundamental principal of our legal system.

By the way, and to preempt any silly assertions that "Well, GZ's self-defense isn't 'properly at issue' because he hasn't proved it" remark from saden or someone else - if the State thought that a prima facia claim of self-defense claim wasn't generated by the evidence, they would have brought a murder 1 charge against GZ. By bringing the murder 2 charge instead, the State acknowledges that the evidence has generated a self-defense claim but they assert it was not valid. As such, they must now prove its invalidity BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

Sorry for "yelling" but the wilfull ignorance being exhibited in this thread is getting me testy.



Again, you're assertion that GZ "create[d] a situation" glosses over the key issues of the case that are in dispute. Further, the claim of self-defense is not "peripheral" - what an idiotic statement. It is central to the events of that evening and sufficiently in dispute so as to be acknowledged by the State's indictment.

All you are doing is restating your initial bias and speculation and throwing in an extra helping of ignorance ... but, hey, that's sounds like an excellent basis to put people in jail.

Prove might have been the wrong word to use, perhaps show would be more appropriate. I am saying a self-defense claim is an extraordinary claim and as such there is a greater burden on the defense than in a typical criminal trial. The prosecutor has 5 angles of attack that the defense must show there is a reasonable cause to doubt each point of attack.

As for murder 1 we don't need to go there because it doesn't apply in this case.

Last edited by saden1; 07-10-2013 at 12:22 PM.
saden1 is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 11:49 AM   #821
Registered User
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,069
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by mlmpetert View Post
Can I get in on the action?

Same as above, except for $50.
Done!
saden1 is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 11:52 AM   #822
Registered User
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,069
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat View Post
What a beat-down!

May I suggest, saden1, you quit while you're behind? You're looking more and more like a one legged man in an ass kicking contest.

This is almost as much fun as the actual trial.

It's hot as hell outside and my balls are sweaty.
saden1 is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 11:59 AM   #823
New HC, new hope!
 
RedskinRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: I'm in LA, trick!
Posts: 8,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
It's hot as hell outside and my balls are sweaty.
Fresh Balls, it's a great product:




Not sure why they have to say it's for men on the packaging......

Last edited by RedskinRat; 07-10-2013 at 12:18 PM.
RedskinRat is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 01:20 PM   #824
New HC, new hope!
 
RedskinRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: I'm in LA, trick!
Posts: 8,700
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Things that make you go "Hmmmmm":

Documents published online Wednesday by a conservative watchdog group show that the Community Relations Service, an arm of the U.S. Justice Department, spent taxpayer dollars to help organize and implement plans for the initial string of rallies in Sanford, Florida following the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

The protests were openly hostile to George Zimmerman, the volunteer neighborhood watch organizer who killed Martin, 17, after a struggle. Zimmerman is currently on trial in a Florida courtroom, charged with second-degree murder.

Its mandate includes 'assist[ing] State and local units of government, private and public organizations, and community groups with preventing and resolving racial and ethnic tensions, incidents, and civil disorders, and in restoring racial stability and harmony.'

Some of the Trayvon Martin protests, however, stoked racial animosity, with Black Panther Party members and the Rev. Al Sharpton suggesting that Zimmerman, a Latino man, was an example of white-on-black violence.

'These documents detail the extraordinary intervention by the Justice Department in the pressure campaign leading to the prosecution of George Zimmerman,' said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

'My guess is that most Americans would rightly object to taxpayers paying government employees to help organize racially-charged demonstrations.'

Obama: 'If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon'

<vomit>
RedskinRat is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 02:41 PM   #825
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 52
Posts: 9,298
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
Prove might have been the wrong word to use, perhaps show would be more appropriate. I am saying a self-defense claim is an extraordinary claim and as such there is a greater burden on the defense than in a typical criminal trial. The prosecutor has 5 angles of attack that the defense must show there is a reasonable cause to doubt each point of attack.

As for murder 1, we don't need to go there because it doesn't apply in this case.
I swear, I am going to start yelling again.

"Prove might have been the wrong word"? YES. IT WAS. In fact, it is a blatantly wrong word. It is in every way incorrect and inapplicable in every sense to the State's case against GZ. "Show"??? Way to try and pull your sh** from the fire and still burn your hand. It's not a question of degree. Zimmerman does not need to "show" anything at this point.

BY THE STATE'S ADMISSION, self defense is at issue in this matter and the State bears the burden of persuasion to demonstrate the claim invalid. Self-defense is not an "extraordinary claim"?? What the f*** does that mean? Self-defense is a common defense in any crime alleging physical harm to another. IT IS A F***ING ELEMENT OF THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM!

With nothing more from GZ, and based on the indictment, the burden is entirely on the State to show - BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT - that one of the five elements of self-defense is invalid. [Did you read the jury instruction saying that the burden of persuasion never switches, it is always on the State?]

But ... if you insist ... let’s look at the law and the evidence and ask “Has the State proved any one of these elements to be invalid beyond a reasonable doubt?" [NOTE: If the State does do so, then, and only then, would GZ need to submit rebuttal evidence to, as you say "prove reasonable doubt". Before GZ need do anything, however, the State must eliminate all reasonable doubt from one or more of the elements].

Preliminarily, the State has alleged GZ inappropriately exercised his right to self-defense and, thus, is guilty of murder2 with its incorporated charge of manslaughter. Based on the evidence presented to date, what possible reasonable doubts could exist as to GZ's use of deadly force in self-defense? First, let's take a look at the elements of self-defense. Per your article, the elements of self-defense are:

(1) Innocence: You cannot initiate a physical confrontation and then claim you are acting in self-defense (unless your opponents actions allow you to “regain your innocence”).

(2) Imminence: Self defense, the right to use violence is only acceptable when threatened with imminent physical harm.

(3) Proportionality: In exercising your right of self-defense, you may only use force proportional to that being used against you.

(4) Avoidance: Before invoking your right to self-defense, you must retreat if a safe route of retreat exists.

(5) Reasonableness: Your perceptions and conduct in self-defense were those of a reasonable and prudent person under the same or similar circumstances.

So, there are the elements. Does the admitted evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) show any one of them to be conclusively – i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt - invalid?

Innocence: To my knowledge the only evidence that could even be interpreted as GZ initiating the physical confrontation is Jeantel’s testimony that she heard Martin say “Get off … Get off” coupled with the facts that GZ was following TM and verbally confronted TM. In contrast, the prosecutor has also introduce evidence showing that GZ has consistently indicated that Martin struck first. This is at, best, a “he said/she said” situation where two people give differing versions of how the fight was initiated and both versions were introduced by the State! I think reasonable doubt abounds as to who was the individual that turned an angry verbal confrontation into a physical confrontation.

Imminence: For this case, as I see it, imminence and innocence are practically one and the same. The prosecution, again, introduced evidence that Martin approached GZ, struck GZ and continued the fight unabated. The State also introduced evidence exists to demonstrate that GZ’s stated estimates of the timing is off (through comparison of the timing on his calls versus Jeantel’s). However, the fight and its lead are, for all intents and purposes, unobserved. As such, there is no evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) to conclusively show how the physical confrontation was initiated and its course through the first 30 seconds or so. Given the admitted evidence, it may have happened the way the State asserts, it may have happened as described by GZ's admitted statements or it may have happend in entirely different manner. No evidence submitted, that I am aware of, absolutely precludes either the State's, GZ's or some other version of the nights events. As such, reasonable doubt abounds.

Proportionality: This, of course, is the crux of the matter. Has the State shown beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ use of deadly force was not-proportional to the force being used against him. As I said in prior posts, if this was GZ’s burden to prove, my analysis would be different. However, it is not his burden. It is the State’s burden to eliminate all reasonable doubts as to the reasonableness of GZ's asserted fear. From your article:

Quote:
The success of the claim Zimmerman’s narrative will surely be a function of the unremitting nature of Martin’s attack—straddling the prone Zimmerman and punching him “MMA-style” even after Zimmerman was clearly no longer any apparent threat and was, by eye-witness account, screaming for help—and the extensiveness of Zimmerman’s injuries as evidenced by medical reports and contemporaneous photos.
Even removing the argumentative phrases regarding "unremitting nature", "clearly no longer a threat" and "the extensiveness of", in light of the above facts --all of which have been admitted into evidence -- and any reasonable inferences drawn from them, show me evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that no person in GZ’s position would be in fear for his life. Particularly in light of the additional evidence from the defense that GZ was “soft” and physically inept in a fight.

[There is fundamental legal principle called the “fragile egg defendant” – if I unjustifiable strike someone with minimal force and break his leg b/c he is particularly fragile for some reason unknown to me, I lose even if the force with which I struck him would not harm the average person in any way and I had no way of knowing my strike would cause extensive harm**. Similarly, here, if the jury deems the evidence that GZ was physically inept to be credible, then the reasonableness of GZ’s actions must be judged from the perspective of a physically inept person.

**In the case that articulated this principle, Kid A inadvertently taps Kid B in the knee while they are both on swings and Kid B's knee, literally, shatters on contact.]

Avoidance: Again, is there any evidence to demonstrate that once the fight began GZ had an opportunity to retreat. Has the State provided evidence to demonstrate – beyond a reasonable doubt - that GZ could have escaped the alleged assault by Martin? I see no evidence precluding a conclusion that, once the fight began, GZ was unable to escape and avoid. Prior to the fight, see the evidence relating to innocence and imminence.

Reasonableness: Although this is applicable to all the above elements, given the lack of anything but speculation as to how this fight began or continued, this really goes to GZ’s use of deadly force and the evidence and arguments are the same as above. Again, and I have said before - while I am not certain GZ has proved his fear was reasonable, I am certain that the State has not shown that, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was.

Go ahead saden1, show me the evidence rebutting any one of these elements beyond any reasonable doubt. I guarantee you cannot do so without relying on your own speculative conclusions as to GZ’s motivations and/or state of mind or filling in a lot of blanks with assumptions as to how each acted that night.
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.
JoeRedskin is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.45678 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25