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, 06:27 PM   #916
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 51
Posts: 8,548
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by over the mountain View Post
i really think it comes down to who the jury will believe and how much weight they will give to each piece of evidence

1) not going to happen obviously. we do have evidence and testimony that martin was "creeped out"by a guy following him ..

2) compare the actual dispatch call by zimmerman vs zimmerman's reenactment. inconsistencies ...

zimmerman was told to not follow martin. what does he do? he then drives in his truck the direction martin went. when he comes to a foot path and cant follow martin anymore in his truck he gets out of his truck. zimmerman said he didnt get out of his truck to follow martin on foot but got of his truck ..... get this .... to look for a street sign bc he didnt know where he was in his own gated community ... which he apparently patrols all the time. . .

his excuse for why he wasnt following martin but had to get out of his truck is unreasonable and unbelievable to me . .

3) i dont place much weight on what the paid for defense expert said .. he is some retired paid for whore just like 99% of all defense experts. his opinions favors who pays him . . . there has been testimony from a neutral EMT (not paid by either party) that zimmerman;s injuries were consistent with 1 blow ot back of the head .. yes i know on cross the EMT said it could have been more . . also witness Good said he didnt know if punches were thrown or if any landed and that the person on bottom could have been able to punch back ...

the jury is going to decide this one. what ever they do will be the right verdict.
Reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt.

(1) To me, without something, circumstantial or otherwise, that GZ started the fight, I don't see how anyone can say there is no reasonable doubt on this issue.

(2) Okay, he got out of his truck and followed TM when he shouldn't have then .... what? TM pops him first? He pops TM first? WTF happened??

(3) You're quoting prosecutor's medical expert who never examined GZ but just photos after the fact - not the EMT - on the striking concrete issue. The neutral on site EMT said very, very clearly that someone exibiting Martin's injuries would "probably" be concerned for their medical well being and could very reasonably be concerned with suffering brain or concussive injuries if they were on their back. Does the fact that you were relying on the prosecution's "whore" and not the neutral EMT affect you're conclusion?

So you completely dismiss Good's testimony as creating any reasonable doubt on the issue fo GZ's state of mind? What about the fact he heard him screaming for help? No doubt created by that?


On the jury issue, I agree. Despite my firm belief that the State has failed miserably in meetings its legal burden, I will accept what the jury decides and have no doubt enough was presented to have six people find a manslaughter charge on this issue.
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.
JoeRedskin is offline  

Advertisements
Old 07-10-2013, 06:30 PM   #917
New HC, new hope!
 
RedskinRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: I'm in LA, trick!
Posts: 8,702
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

If you're 'soft' and take a pop to the head who's to say that you don't immediately fear for your life?
RedskinRat is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 06:43 PM   #918
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 51
Posts: 8,548
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
1. Again, I am saying that if the defendant is claiming self-defense then burden is on him to create doubt by providing evidence to the contrary. Nothing Zimmerman's defense team has shown places doubt as two who initiated the attack only that Zimmerman sustained non-threatening injuries while Martin sustained a gun shot to the heart. You seem to think this is a win for the defense and I do not. All he has to show is a few buries and conflicting witness statement neither of which necessary refuted a larger body of circumstantial evidence.

2. All Zimmerman so far is say "i have scars on my head" and I don't believe that to be sufficient to create doubt. Even if the scars life threatening there isn't sufficient evidence that who attacked who. As for Goods, he isn't credible and I wouldn't place much value in his testimony

I will ask you again, what is Affirmative Defense?

(1) Your just f'ing wrong on how you are applying the law. It is not his "burden to create doubt". Read the F'ing case law OMT googled and the jury instructions and tell me how your assertion is consistent with them.

(2) So you entireely discount the EMT's assertion that a person exhibiting GZ's injuries would probably be in fear for their medical safety and concerned about concussive or brain injuries. Doesn't cause you the tiniest bit of doubt. Good isn't credible?? The one guy who had a close up view of the altercation as it was occuring? And his testimony that GZ was screaming for help is just flluff?

Affirmative defense is a defense raised by the defending party.

In a civil matter, to gain the benefit of the affirmative defense, the defendant raising it must prove all its elements by a preponderance of the evidence. If he does so, plaintiff must then rebut the defense by disproving one or more elements by a preponderance of the evidence or his claim will fail.

In a criminal matter, whether raised by the defendant or fairly generated by the State's evidence, once a prima facie case has been made (i.e. viewing the facts in evidence, and any reasonable inferences drawn from them, in a light most favorable to the defendant, they create the possibilty of a jury question), the burden is then upon the state to eliminate all reasonable doubt as to one or more of the elements of the affirmative defense. If they fail to do so, a verdict of not guilty is required.
__________________
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, 07:12 PM   #919
Playmaker
 
HailGreen28's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,603
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by over the mountain View Post
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; defendantís 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
Hey, OTM. Enjoyed reading your posts, as well as JoeR and RR's in this thread, even though you and I apparently disagree.

One thing surprised me about your posts was how you seem to take the above statement. That self defense must be supported by reasonable evidence by the defense (prima facie - at first glance, plausible, reasonable on the face of it), and that it's then the prosecution's burden to disprove it.

Reading your posts, I thought initially that you were agreeing with RR about Zimmerman's defense have established prima facie self defense, that it was now up to the prosecution to provide a case more than a reasonable doubt. But I get the impression that you don't think Z's defense has met that burden.

Why isn't Martin being on top of Zimmerman pummeling him, with Zimmerman sustaining the only injuries in the fisticuff part of the fight (broken nose, black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury) enough to establish "prima facie" self defense?

I mean, it's important in this trial to try figuring out the details, like who started the fight, was it reasonable for Zimmerman to fear for his life, etc. But just to establish a reasonable first glance self defense... Geez does someone have to have their skull already split open before they can make a possible claim of self defense, in your opinion?

While I don't know how the known details should be weighed, I hope the jury is taught how to in this case, in the final verdict. (I personally think so far the murder count is a joke, manslaughter in this or a civil trial might be right though I doubt it, and the burden of proof is very much on the prosecution in this case.)

Maybe some people are confusing ordinary self-defense claims with stand-your-ground. Stand-your-ground appears to me, to offer protection to people AFTER it's proven they were justified in using lethal force, to prevent revenge minded people from suing the person into bankruptcy after they were found innocent by self defense. That's why SYG is an affirmative defense, the defendant has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt self defense was justified, to get the protection against lawsuits SYG offers.

The traditional "self defense" claim is not the same as SYG. As long as it's plausible the defendant could have used self-defense, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution. Like practically ALL crimes, the defendant is presumed innocent until guilty, as they should be. (At least one exception, if the IRS comes after you) Zimmerman isn't claiming SYG, he's claiming traditional self defense.

So, OTM, I really don't understand why you quote the standards for self defense, and then appear to think that the burden of proof rests with the defense in this case.

Last edited by HailGreen28; 07-10-2013 at 07:20 PM.
HailGreen28 is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 07:17 PM   #920
Eternally Legendary
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 34
Posts: 9,878
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
(1) Your just f'ing wrong on how you are applying the law. It is not his "burden to create doubt". Read the F'ing case law OMT googled and the jury instructions and tell me how your assertion is consistent with them.

(2) So you entireely discount the EMT's assertion that a person exhibiting GZ's injuries would probably be in fear for their medical safety and concerned about concussive or brain injuries. Doesn't cause you the tiniest bit of doubt. Good isn't credible?? The one guy who had a close up view of the altercation as it was occuring? And his testimony that GZ was screaming for help is just flluff?

Affirmative defense is a defense raised by the defending party.

In a civil matter, to gain the benefit of the affirmative defense, the defendant raising it must prove all its elements by a preponderance of the evidence. If he does so, plaintiff must then rebut the defense by disproving one or more elements by a preponderance of the evidence or his claim will fail.

In a criminal matter, whether raised by the defendant or fairly generated by the State's evidence, once a prima facie case has been made (i.e. viewing the facts in evidence, and any reasonable inferences drawn from them, in a light most favorable to the defendant, they create the possibilty of a jury question), the burden is then upon the state to eliminate all reasonable doubt as to one or more of the elements of the affirmative defense. If they fail to do so, a verdict of not guilty is required.
Quote:
It is not his "burden to create doubt".
So basically the state can present evidence and all Zimmerman has to do is show up to court? He is not obligated to take an active role in demonstrating why the state's claims should be doubted?

If you're going to claim self-defense you must show it was self-defense. If you're going to claim insanity you must show you are insane. All you're doing is circling the wagon and avoiding the heart of the matter. Has the state demonstrated enough evidence to convict? I believe it has. Has Zimmerman provided enough evidence to create reasonable doubt? You seem to think so without actually saying "there is a level of burden on the defense in a self-defense case to refuted the evidence presented by the prosecution and create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors."

As for Good, any witness that changes their story is suspect. Which version of his story should we believe? Or should we just dismiss his testimony outright? If I am a juror, I dismiss his testimony as not credible. As for the EMT, his testimony adds little value except to say he was injured. I don't who initiated the altercation but I do know who was stalking who, and who violated reasonableness therefore I will dismiss his testimony as peripheral.

You can attack me all you want and make snide comments but I tell you what, I've put my money where my mouth is and I stand by everything I have said in this thread. We'll know who was right and was wrong wrong wrong soon enough.
__________________
"The Redskins have always suffered from chronic organizational deformities under Snyder."

-Jenkins

Last edited by saden1; 07-10-2013 at 07:23 PM.
saden1 is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 07:27 PM   #921
Gamebreaker
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 12,530
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
So basically the state can present evidence and all Zimmerman has to do is show up to court? He is not obligated to take an active role in demonstrating why the state's claims should be doubted?

If you're going to claim self-defense you must show it was self-defense. If you're going to claim insanity you must show you are insane. All you're doing is circling the wagon and avoiding the heart of the matter. Has the state demonstrated enough evidence to convict? I believe it has. Has Zimmerman provided enough evidence to create reasonable doubt? You seem to think so without actually saying "there is a level of burden on the defense in a self-defense case to refuted the evidence presented by the prosecution and create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors."

As for Good, any witness that changes their story is suspect. Which version of his story should we believe? Or should we just dismiss his testimony outright? If I am a juror, I dismiss his testimony as not credible. As for the EMT, his testimony adds little value except to say he was injured. I don't who initiated the altercation but I do know who was stalking who, and who violated reasonableness therefore I will dismiss his testimony as peripheral.

You can attack me all you want and make snide comments but I tell you what, I've put my money where my mouth is and I stand by everything I have said in this thread. We'll know who was right and was wrong wrong wrong soon enough.
He is obligated (from the way I understand it) to show a basic initial face value claim. After that yes, he does sit back and the State has to show beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't seem as complicated as you may be making it.
CRedskinsRule is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 07:38 PM   #922
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 51
Posts: 8,548
So, in this case, if you take every good fact for GZ made and every favorable inference reasonably flowing from them and accept them as 100% correct, would the legal requirements ( the five elements) of GZ's self defense claim be met? If so, a prima facia case is made, the defense is properly raised, the above instructions are given and the State's duty to rebut one or more of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt is invoked.

It is essentially saying "If we believe EVERYTHING favorable fact and inference as the god's honest truth, could a jury legally find you innocent?"
__________________
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, 07:39 PM   #923
Eternally Legendary
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 34
Posts: 9,878
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
He is obligated (from the way I understand it) to show a basic initial face value claim. After that yes, he does sit back and the State has to show beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't seem as complicated as you may be making it.
That's exactly what I am saying. It's Joe that making this more complicated than it is. All I have said all along is that self-defense places a burden on the defense, much more so than in non-affirmative defense.
__________________
"The Redskins have always suffered from chronic organizational deformities under Snyder."

-Jenkins
saden1 is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 07:47 PM   #924
Eternally Legendary
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 34
Posts: 9,878
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
So, in this case, if you take every good fact for GZ made and every favorable inference reasonably flowing from them and accept them as 100% correct, would the legal requirements ( the five elements) of GZ's self defense claim be met? If so, a prima facia case is made, the defense is properly raised, the above instructions are given and the State's duty to rebut one or more of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt is invoked.

It is essentially saying "If we believe EVERYTHING favorable fact and inference as the god's honest truth, could a jury legally find you innocent?"
I get all of that, what I don't get is why you seem to think there is no obligation on the part of the defense to present these facts. If the presentation of these facts by the defense is not optional then there exists a burden on the defense!
__________________
"The Redskins have always suffered from chronic organizational deformities under Snyder."

-Jenkins
saden1 is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 07:59 PM   #925
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 51
Posts: 8,548
Because the prosecution has submitted all the necessary facts to establish the defense during their case in chief. -- They didn't have to put GZ' s statements to the cops in, the didn't have to play the Hannity interview, they didn't have to play the reenactment, they didn't have to put Zimm's author friend on the stand. They didn't have to call Good or the EMT to testify.

But they did.

In light of all that evidence, GZ has no legal obligation to present anything more.
__________________
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, 08:10 PM   #926
Eternally Legendary
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 34
Posts: 9,878
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
Because the prosecution has submitted all the necessary facts to establish the defense during their case in chief. -- They didn't have to put GZ' s statements to the cops in, the didn't have to play the Hannity interview, they didn't have to play the reenactment, they didn't have to put Zimm's author friend on the stand. They didn't have to call Good or the EMT to testify.

But they did.

In light of all that evidence, GZ has no legal obligation to present anything more.
What you describe is a defense tactic in which it piggy-backs on the prosecution. That isn't to say though that they are not legally obligated to present evidence to support his self-defense.
__________________
"The Redskins have always suffered from chronic organizational deformities under Snyder."

-Jenkins
saden1 is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 08:34 PM   #927
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 51
Posts: 8,548
You want GZ on the stand testifying and he simply has no legal burden to do so.

Even if the prosecution DIDN'T put the evidence listed on, GZ could and leave it at that. In light of the evidence presented by the prosecution, what need be shown to establish a prima facia case?? Short of taking the stand himself what could he possibly present that has not been brought out by the prosecution??

It's always the defendant's option/risk of resting your case without testifying. Even when you are arguing an affirmative defense is applicable. This is true in any case. Civil or criminal (although in a civil trial you can be subpoenaed by the other side).
__________________
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, 08:35 PM   #928
Gamebreaker
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 12,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
What you describe is a defense tactic in which it piggy-backs on the prosecution. That isn't to say though that they are not legally obligated to present evidence to support his self-defense.
Taking the points JR summarized and putting them up as the defense closing statement using facts already in evidence would seem to satisfy what you are saying the defense needs to do. Not quite sure what else you are saying they would need to do.
__________________
Dirtbag59, sending songs to oblivion 1 writer at a time.
CRedskinsRule is offline  
Old 07-10-2013, 08:36 PM   #929
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 51
Posts: 8,548
He is absolutely allowed to "piggy back" the prosecution case. The evidence is the evidence. It doesn't "belong" to anyone.
__________________
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, 09:00 PM   #930
MVP
 
Chico23231's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 37
Posts: 11,333
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Of course Zim's not gonna take the stand and give the world his side of the story, because thats what a man does and he's a straight up bitch. its his mo at this point

If he's gets off, Id like to go ahead and go old skool and exile him.
__________________
Ditka for President
Chico23231 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 01:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.62152 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