Trayvon Martin Case

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

It does not matter that no one witnessed you killing someone. Hernandez can't claim self defense. why? How do we know Oden did not attack him? No one saw it and no one knows. Hernandez could say self defense. Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed person. The rest is a mystery.

Well it may come down to things like circumstances being different, execution style shooting(though I guess Oden may have ninja talents), one of the guys in the car saying that Hernandez said he shot him (not in a self defense kinda way).

But I guess it's his right to try.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by saden1

I really tired to read and comprehend your cluster **** of a post before I realize you're a dummy.

lol, I'm just quoting websites you brought up yourself, thinking they would support your side. Guess what, they don't.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

this is an interesting case. i think everyone here is being "reasonable" in their approach and thoughts but yet we have a split of opinion on the warpath ..


im not a crim def atty, and it appears this has been covered ad nauseum in this thread since you posted .. but after spending 10 seconds i believe what has already been said in here ... the burden is on the defendant to establish a prima facie case of justified self-defense, then the burden swings back to the prosecution to prove beyond a reas doubt that the amount of force used in self defense was unjustified ....

and sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case can come from any where and anyone, it doesnt have to come from the defendant's own mouth or even from the defendant's witnesses . . just as long as the admitted evid at trial supports it . .

Agree with everything you said. I just think that since it's been established that Martin had pinned and was beating Zimmerman up, and there's certainly the possibility that either one started it, the low standard for prima facie self defence has been exceeded by a wide margin. It doesn't prove Zimmerman's innocent, but certainly puts the burden of proof on the prosecution.

I wonder if this trial will be decided by the facts (maybe manslaughter, not murder2), by fear of riots (guilty on something), or something like the Golden Mean Fallacy (manslaughter) with the composition of the jury.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

It does not matter that no one witnessed you killing someone. Hernandez can't claim self defense. why? How do we know Oden did not attack him? No one saw it and no one knows. Hernandez could say self defense. Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed person. The rest is a mystery.

Hernandez looks premeditated, but that for another thread. you go with guys to pick him up and drive to an empty lot? I mean thats straight from a Sopranos episode.

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Hernandez looks premeditated, but that for another thread. you go with guys to pick him up and drive to an empty lot? I mean thats straight from a Sopranos episode.

true

[JoeRedskin]

As I expected, Defense is driving a truck through the gaps. Highlighting the requirement that, if jury makes assumptions about evidence, they must make them in favor of defendant.

Good use of photos and physical evidence.

The crux of it for me:

8:47 a.m. ET: O'Mara tells jurors they can't fill the gaps or connect the dots for the prosecutors.

"Assumptions presume a lack of evidence," O'Mara said.

8:49 a.m. ET: "Do not give anybody the benefit of the doubt except for George Zimmerman," O'Mara said.

8:51 a.m. ET: “You’ve heard from him, time and time and time again, you’ve heard from him, telling you what happened that night,” said O'Mara, who also asked jurors to not presume why Zimmerman didn't testify.

...

8:57 a.m. ET: "How many ‘coulda- beens’ have you heard from the state in this case? How many ‘what ifs’ have you heard from the state in this case? They don’t get to ask you that. No, no, no," O'Mara said. He also says prosecutors are supposed to show "what I have proven to you."

At the same time, IMO, the narrative seems less emotionally compelling than that of prosecutor's and much less aggressive in attacking the evidence - it's almost like he is apologizing for telling them that the prosecution is wrong. So far, not the best work from them.

[JoeRedskin]

The jury instructions:

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_...structions.pdf

Closing remarks of the instructions, something often forgotten and ignored by most people:

In closing, let me remind you that it is important that you follow the law spelled out in these instructions in deciding your verdict. There are no other laws that apply to this case.

Even if you do not like the laws that must be applied, you must use them. For two centuries we have lived by the Constitution and the law. No juror has the right to violate rules we all share.

[skinsfaninok]

I haven't watched today, what are the odds looking like now for GZ?

[JoeRedskin]

The instruction relating to self-defense:

An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.

“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.
In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.

However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proven.

[JoeRedskin]

Strong rebuttal. IMO, not enough to put murder 2 on the table, but solid.

Really, really going to be a tough call.

[JoeRedskin]

Great line by prosecution: "This case is not about standing your ground, it's about staying in your car."

[Chico23231]

Is Joe now leaning towards a guilty verdict?

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Great line by prosecution: "This case is not about standing your ground, it's about staying in your car."

Please remember that the person requesting that Zimmerman stay in his car had no authority to do so.

If you've repeatedly been let down by LE why would you not do the job you've volunteered to do?

[RedskinRat]

Good redux on CNN right now.

[JoeRedskin]

Joe is very much on the fence. B/c I am on the fence, personally, I have to say not guilty.

Strong closing by the prosecution, not the defense's best work. Still, the trial was 12 days. Closing impressions will last for the first hour or so of deliberations maybe the first two if the prosecution is lucky - then the jurors will get back to their preconceptions.

Staying with the not guilty - but will not be surprised by anything except having a verdict before tomorrow late afternoon/early evening at the earliest.