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 07-10-2013, 02:46 PM   #826
New HC, new hope!
 
RedskinRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: I'm in LA, trick!
Posts: 8,700
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

We ain't paying you by the word, JR....
RedskinRat is offline  

Advertisements
Old 07-10-2013, 02:58 PM   #827
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 52
Posts: 9,295
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

lol ... if you were, it would be longer.

What can I say, it's a rough draft.
__________________
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, 02:58 PM   #828
Gamebreaker
 
Chico23231's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 38
Posts: 13,552
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Hey Joe Im actually gonna be in around Columbia Maryland this weekend and probably will be committing some crimes. FYI. Ill PM Monday if need be
__________________
“Nobody’s going to be handed a job; not my standpoint, and I know Jay feels that way and I know Bruce feels the same way. You have to earn it. That’s what the NFL is about. Prove to me that you deserve to be on the field,’ and that’s the way it has to be in the NFL.”- McC
Chico23231 is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 03:00 PM   #829
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 52
Posts: 9,295
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

^^ lol
__________________
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, 03:24 PM   #830
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
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:



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.
Let me get this...you are saying I can follow RedskinRat into an elevator...shoot him dead after intiating an altercation then claim self-defense...and that the state has to prove that it was not self defense? And if it doesnt I get to walk?

I am calling Bullshit! Self-defense is an affirmative defense. This means the defendant's statements must be sufficient to warrant relief from the court.

Quote:
An affirmative defense is a complete or partial defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal procedure that affirms the complaint or charges but raises facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, would defeat or reduce a claim even if the allegations alleged are all proven.

Zimmerman must prove, show or whatever the **** you want to call it that he acted in self-defense.


p.s. It's not too hard to get a conviction based on circumstantial evidence and I believe there is sufficent evidence in the Zimmerman case...see:

Renton teen gets almost 70 years for fatal shooting | Local News | The Seattle Times

Last edited by saden1; 07-10-2013 at 03:40 PM.
saden1 is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 03:40 PM   #831
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 52
Posts: 9,295
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Interesting evidence excluded by the Judge, the “Connor” referred to is a computer forensics guy talking about information found on TM’s phone:

Quote:
8:43 p.m. ET: There are text messages on the phone showing Martin had been in a fight, according to Connor . He also says these texts were stored in an application that is meant to hide text messages from the main database.

8:47 p.m. ET: Connor says if you want to see these hidden messages, you would have to know which application to use and put in the passcode for the application. Connor says this passcode is in addition to the code needed to open the phone itself.

8:52 p.m. ET: Connor is describing how he extracts data and puts it into tables on a database.

8:57 p.m. ET: A conversation between Martin and a friend is being read by Connor. Martin says he was fighting because someone snitched on him. She asks him why he's always fighting. Martin tells her he lost the first round but won the second and third rounds. She tells him several times that he needs to stop fighting.

9:01 p.m. ET: Connor says there was another text conversation that details the fight and he reads it out loud. Martin says the other guy had him on the ground for the first round.

9:03 p.m. ET: In a Facebook message, Connor says a relative asked Martin when he was going to teach him how to fight.
Judge delays ruling on animation, Martin's texts | HLNtv.com

The Judge determined that the authenticity of these statements could not be confirmed b/c there is no way to determine if TM was the one who actually sent the messages. [To pre-empt the inevitable “So what if he got into fights on occasion, it doesn’t prove he did here” assertions – the evidence is relevant and otherwise admissible for the same reasons that the prosecution introduced evidence of GZ’s MMA background.]
__________________
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, 03:51 PM   #832
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 saden1 View Post
Let me get this...you are saying I can follow RedskinRat into an elevator...
Dude, we wouldn't even be in the same building unless I'm visiting you in jail to laugh at you.
RedskinRat is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 03:53 PM   #833
Registered User
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,069
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown View Post
There is no evidence that Zimmerman started anything. Following a person is not against the law. That's the problem with their case. If there was evidence that Zim. started an altercation then he should be convicted.
If he can't show that he didn't start it then it's at the very least manslaughter. You can't simply claim self-defense and walk away and contrary to what JoeRedskins has to say on the matter you have to show it was in fact self-defense and poke holes in the prosecutors claims.
saden1 is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 04:10 PM   #834
MVP
 
FRPLG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 36
Posts: 10,063
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

You're aeguing wirh an actual practicing lawyer about how the law works.
FRPLG is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 04:24 PM   #835
Registered User
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,069
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by FRPLG View Post
You're aeguing wirh an actual practicing lawyer about how the law works.
Correct. I don't have to be a lawyer or stay at a Holiday Inn to comprehend the law.
saden1 is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 04:35 PM   #836
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 52
Posts: 9,295
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
Let me get this...you are saying I can follow RedskinRat into an elevator...shoot him dead after intiating an altercation then claim self-defense...and that the state has to prove that it was not self defense? And if it doesnt I get to walk?

I am calling Bullshit! Self-defense is an affirmative defense. This means the defendant's statements must be sufficient to warrant relief from the court.

Zimmerman must prove, show or whatever the **** you want to call it that he acted in self-defense.

p.s. It's not too hard to get a conviction based on circumstantial evidence and I believe there is sufficent evidence in the Zimmerman case...see:

Renton teen gets almost 70 years for fatal shooting | Local News | The Seattle Times
You can call bullshit all you want - you would be wrong. You call bullshit on lots of things where reality conflicts with with the world according saden1. Nothing new there.

Whether admitted in the indictment, introduced by the prosecution during the trial or placed into controversy by the defendant, once raised, it is the State's burden to prove your guilt. Your analogy is miles away from GZ's claim and, in these matters, the devil is in the details. You may claim it. but without something more, (injuries, evidence of a fight, someone hearing you screaming for help), it will be pretty easy to overcome a simple "uhh, he tried to kill me - yeah, that's the ticket!" defense.

Again - here are Florida's pattern jury instructions:

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.
Unlike your simplistic, devoid of facts example, in this case, by their own admission, and as demonstrated through their own evidence, the State has placed Zimm's self-defense claim at issue and now bears the burden of proof and persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt.

So I ask you again: Through the admitted evidence, and without speculation or argumentative characterizations, demonstrate that the State has eliminated all reasonable doubt such that the claim is invalidated as to any one of the five elements necesary for a valid claim of self-defense.
__________________
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 05:13 PM.
JoeRedskin is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 04:49 PM   #837
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 52
Posts: 9,295
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
If he can't show that he didn't start it then it's at the very least manslaughter. You can't simply claim self-defense and walk away and contrary to what JoeRedskins has to say on the matter you have to show it was in fact self-defense and poke holes in the prosecutors claims.
Damn. For a smart guy, you can truly be pig-headedly dumb. Show me applicable Florida law supporting your assertion. Florida law is clearly stated in the pattern jury instructions given on this issue. At the conclusion of this case, the judge is going to tell these jurors: "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."

To be clear, captain deflection, GZ is not simply "claim[ing] self-defense and walk[ing] away." Again (for the third time), through admissible evidence, without speculation and without argumentative characterizations, demonstrate how the State:

(1) has eliminated all reasonable doubt that GZ was "justified in using deadly force [because] he reasonably believe[d] that such force [was] 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."; and

(2) has eliminated "all reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force".
__________________
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, 05:10 PM   #838
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 52
Posts: 9,295
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
p.s. It's not too hard to get a conviction based on circumstantial evidence and I believe there is sufficent evidence in the Zimmerman case...see:

Renton teen gets almost 70 years for fatal shooting | Local News | The Seattle Times
This case is what we lawyers who do more than stay at a Holiday Inn call "easily distinguishable". Prosecutor's has forensic cell phone evidence placing the suspect at the scene, an admission of murder in the commission of a crime that was judged credible and his girlfriend ID'ing him from the tapes.

Quote:
The case against Keodara was built primarily on the testimony of a friend who had served time with him in a juvenile facility, according to court documents.

The friend told Wenatchee police he’d gotten a frantic call from Keodara on the night of the shooting, saying he’d shot a man over a drug deal and needed to get out of town, prosecutors say.

In addition, video surveillance from a nearby gas station and drugstore show a car similar to the one described by witnesses stopping at the shelter around 2:31 a.m., prosecutors say.

Keodara’s ex-girlfriend identified him from surveillance footage, and cellphone records placed him in the area at the time of the shootings, according to Carlstrom.

But Brandes said during the trial that the two cellphones taken into evidence by police weren’t registered to Keodara and that the surveillance footage wasn’t clear enough to identify Keodara.

The gun used in the shootings was never found, and the two other Asian males who were at the scene were never identified, she said.
Find me, in the GZ/TM evidence, a confession from GZ that he wasn't in fear of his life, survelliance video showing the fight with a witness (preferably GZ's wife for consistency with your idiotic analogy) identifying GZ as the person initiating the fight, and some independent techological forensic evidence demonstrating that, at the time he shot TM, GZ could not reasonably have been in fear for his life. Then we can talk.

Until then, stay out of Holiday Inns.
__________________
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 05:15 PM.
JoeRedskin is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 05:19 PM   #839
Playmaker
 
over the mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: close to the edge
Posts: 3,979
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

When self-defense is asserted, the defendant has the burden of producing
enough evidence to establish a prima facie case demonstrating the justifiable use of
force
. Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424, 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Fields v. State, 988
So. 2d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); see Murray v. State, 937 So. 2d 277, 282 (Fla.
4th DCA 2006) (holding that law does not require defendant to prove self-defense to
any standard measuring assurance of truth, exigency, near certainty, or even mere
probability; defendant’s only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could
have been reasonable). Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing of selfdefense, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant did not act in self-defense. Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188. The burden of proving
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including the burden of proving that the defendant did
not act in self-defense, never shifts from the State to the defendant. Montijo, 61 So. 3d
at 427; Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188; see Monsansky v. State, 33 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2010) (explaining that defendant has burden to present sufficient evidence that he
acted in self-defense in order to be entitled to jury instruction on issue, but presentation

^^ after 2 seconds on google i found a 2012 florida appellate opinion (appears to be unreported) ... falwell v state, 5D10-2011
over the mountain is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 05:23 PM   #840
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 firstdown View Post
There is no evidence that Zimmerman started anything. Following a person is not against the law. That's the problem with their case. If there was evidence that Zim. started an altercation then he should be convicted.
That's a lot of people's perception of the case and why they've got it wrong. Zimmerman wasn't hunting down an innocent little kid, who may or may not resembled the current President's son....
RedskinRat 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 05:07 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 0.40817 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