Trayvon Martin and "Stand Your Ground" in FL

[SECHusker]

c) A good prosecutor would have lit Zimmerman's ass on fire. Zimmerman's story has too many holes.

 

You realize that it's not the job of the prosecution to poke holes in his case, it's their job to conclusively demonstrate beyond all doubt their own side of the story? Poking enough holes, or raising enough questions, was the defense's job.

 

The rest of your post is a whole lot of conjecture. There are a lot of things any number of people have never heard of, but fortunately those are not the kind of pillars upon which our justice system relies. Thankfully too there are (usually) higher standards for expert forensic testimony.

 

When you raise a defense to murder in Florida the enerous is on the defendant to prove such defense. George Zimmerman's argument is that the murder was excusable under the circumstances, when he raised this argument he had the burden to prove it.

 

As for the rest being conjucture, especially the blood the gun argument. I'll leave the rest to you.

 

***and its "beyond reasonable doubt."

[zoogs]

OK, maybe I don't understand how murder trials work. It was my understanding that the prosecution carried a beyond all reasonable doubt burden of proof, but you're saying otherwise. I could be wrong.

 

Under cross-examination by defense attorney Don West, Gorgone agreed that it appeared Martin’s clothes were improperly stored, which could have had an impact on the evidence. The clothes were put in a plastic bag while wet, then that was put inside a paper bag. It would have been better to dry out the clothes or to have used only paper bags.

When he opened the bags, Gorgone testified, the clothes smelled, possibly of mold or ammonia.

 

Per your link.

 

And yes, claiming to know in this situation what Zimmerman did or didn't have the time or ability to do is total conjecture.

[JJ Husker]

Once again, Zimmerman was tried and found not guilty.

 

So was OJ.

 

Please, please tell me you are not implying that you feel Zimmerman was as obviously guilty as OJ. I can see drawing parallels between the two cases based on race being a primary consideration of the media but, are you also saying that GZ is no different than OJ as far as what was proven in court by the evidence?

[SECHusker]

OK, maybe I don't understand how murder trials work. It was my understanding that the prosecution carried a beyond all reasonable doubt burden of proof, but you're saying otherwise. I could be wrong.

 

Under cross-examination by defense attorney Don West, Gorgone agreed that it appeared Martin’s clothes were improperly stored, which could have had an impact on the evidence. The clothes were put in a plastic bag while wet, then that was put inside a paper bag. It would have been better to dry out the clothes or to have used only paper bags.

When he opened the bags, Gorgone testified, the clothes smelled, possibly of mold or ammonia.

 

Per your link.

 

And yes, claiming to know in this situation what Zimmerman did or didn't have the time or ability to do is total conjecture.

 

Yeah, when the defendant puts up a statutory defense in Florida it is up to the defense to prove it. I'm pretty sure that's what they taught me in L-School. The reason being there is no doubt that someone was murdered, and there is no doubt that the defendant committed the murder, so it is up to the defendant to prove that they acted correctly under the circumstances.

 

There appears to have been shotty work everywhere in this case, and it is unfortunate the State seemingly pissed away its chances.

 

I never claimed I knew what Zimmerman did or didn't do, I simply said his story doesn't make sense.

[SECHusker]

what would have been the correct amount of head bashes before GZ defended himself?

IF that is how it went down, he can defend himself all he wants, but with a gun thats a little excessive. Especially, when there was no indication his life was endanger.

 

Next question will likely be, how many seconds do I take of me getting my a** whooped before I blast someone away? Followed by, does a person punching me allow me to shoot them?

[Whistlebritches]

what would have been the correct amount of head bashes before GZ defended himself?

IF that is how it went down, he can defend himself all he wants, but with a gun thats a little excessive. Especially, when there was no indication his life was endanger.

 

Next question will likely be, how many seconds do I take of me getting my a** whooped before I blast someone away? Followed by, does a person punching me allow me to shoot them?

 

Agree with it or not but the jury pretty clearly believed that GZ thought his life was in danger and they were privy to more information than any of us on this board.

[EZ-E]

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

 

Really thought this was interesting. For our lawyers here, do any of these set precedence (spelling? For some reason I can never figure that one out.) ????

 

Check out the one where the guy was turning away as a man shot him twice in Citris County.

[zoogs]

You got it, EZ.

 

SEC, you piqued my curiosity, so I looked it up: http://www.ohio.com/blogs/akron-law-cafe/akron-law-caf%C3%A9-1.295890/zimmerman-s-low-burden-of-proof-on-the-issue-of-self-defense-1.297239

 

In her news conference announcing that George Zimmerman was being charged with second degree murder in the death of Trayvon Martin, Florida Special Prosecutor Angela Corey mentioned several times that self-defense is an "affirmative defense" under Florida law. She also said that "Stand Your Ground" is "a tough affirmative defense to overcome." It will be "tough" for the prosecution because although Zimmerman has to introduce some evidence that he acted in self-defense, that doesn't mean that he has to convince the jury that he acted in self-defense. All he has to do is to create a "reasonable doubt" as to whether he acted in self-defense. A proposed amendment to the Florida Jury Instructions makes that perfectly clear.

 

The link goes into more detail than that introductory paragraph, but it does seem that the real burden of proof ultimately rested on the prosecution.

[walksalone]

Both parties are equally at fault for the altercation happening.

no.

 

How are you so sure, were you there?

[SECHusker]

You got it, EZ.

 

SEC, you piqued my curiosity, so I looked it up: http://www.ohio.com/...efense-1.297239

 

In her news conference announcing that George Zimmerman was being charged with second degree murder in the death of Trayvon Martin, Florida Special Prosecutor Angela Corey mentioned several times that self-defense is an "affirmative defense" under Florida law. She also said that "Stand Your Ground" is "a tough affirmative defense to overcome." It will be "tough" for the prosecution because although Zimmerman has to introduce some evidence that he acted in self-defense, that doesn't mean that he has to convince the jury that he acted in self-defense. All he has to do is to create a "reasonable doubt" as to whether he acted in self-defense. A proposed amendment to the Florida Jury Instructions makes that perfectly clear.

 

The link goes into more detail than that introductory paragraph, but it does seem that the real burden of proof ultimately rested on the prosecution.

 

And that is what I don't get about this case. I spoke this over with some prior L-School colleagues that now work for the State Attorney. Usually when the shooter is not in doubt, he gets charged plain and simple, especially when the victim does have a deadly weapon or the defendant is not protecting their family/homestead. That part is typically open and close, and then if defendant puts forth his affirmative defense the prosecution can poke holes in it to attack the credibility of the argument (it is still a burden for prosecution to disprove the affirmative defense, but the burden is lighter). Because what is not in doubt, is that someone is dead. I wish I could have read the complete facts to get more insight, but I think different circuits would have approached this case in a different way.

 

***This is my recollection of the law from Crim. Law and informal conversations with former colleagues and should not be taken as statutory fact.

;

Edit(1)I do disagree with the quote that affirmative defenses are tough to overcome, because if they were easy to prove we would definitely have more criminals getting off.

 

Edit(2): Last edit promise. Zimmerman didn't use the Stand Your Ground defense . That Law was meant to protect folks in who kill a burglar in their homestead.

[SECHusker]

http://www.tampabay....ding-on/1233133

 

Really thought this was interesting. For our lawyers here, do any of these set precedence (spelling? For some reason I can never figure that one out.) ????

 

Check out the one where the guy was turning away as a man shot him twice in Citris County.

 

Yeah, that is a weird case, but if someone is shooting at you I would hope they wouldn't charge you if you shot back. Either way I prefer no legislation give anyone the power to have a shoot out. That is when the innocent people get killed.

 

But it is hard to prove. I believe before trial the defendant has to prove at a separate hearing that the statute is applicable, so this defense is no walk-in park to get. (however, I may be wrong).

[EZ-E]

Again, I've said it in this thread enough. The only things that were really proven beyond a reasonable doubt in this case are that:

 

1) GZ followed TM

2) GZ called the police

3) GZ disclosed there had been a series of burglaries in his gated community

4) Dispatcher asked for a location

5) GZ exited his vehicle

6) dispatcher asked if he was following suspect

7) GZ said yes

8) dispatcher said we don't need you to do that

9) GZ said okay

10) at the time the above was happening, TM was on the phone and he's exclaimed he was being followed by this "Creepy ass cracker"

11) There was a physical altercation that left GZ with a fractured nose, lacerations to the back of his head, and a bruise back.

12) a single gunshot wound to the chest from 0-18 inches away at an upward angle using a legally carried firearm killed TM during the physical altercation.

 

If I have missed anything, absolutely anything, please someone correct me. I know that I have done this in this thread more than once, but if I am reading the above correctly and that is everything that anyone can prove BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT then you can't possibly send GZ to prison under Florida law. Not a chance in hell that given the evidence (again if I'm reading it correctly) you can send GZ to jail under Florida's self-defense laws. To me it is cut and dry.

 

I'm not going to argue with anyone about "racial profiling" because the lead FBI investigator said that he "criminally profiled" him. Racial profiling wasnt even in the prosecutions argument if i remember correctly. So you can basically throw anything like that out the window. The fact of the matter is that they could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that GZ did anything wrong under Florida Law. Therefore a complete acquittal needed to be the verdict.

[Apathy]

Racial profiling wasnt even in the prosecutions argument if i remember correctly.

 

The prosecution did say that it wasn't about race but that GZ did racial profile Martin but since day one the Media has beat the race card to death and have feed us 12 year old baby faced pictures of Martin instead of current pictures of Martin. Also with President Obama saying "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin" didn't help but fuel the race debut again.

 

This is what pissed me off about this case right off the bat. Lets forget about the facts of what happened or any evidence of the brusies and cuts on GZ etc, lets just talk about how this was motivated by race and how GZ killed Martin because he was black and up to no good.

[Apathy]

Picture that the media is feeding everybody

 

 

Picture that the media doesn't want you to see

 

Sure looks like the little innocent angel the media is making him out to be

 

 

 

Heres a link of Martins phone records of texts about smoking weed and fighting. I didn't see the texts from his dad aka "Fruit" about buying some guns but again I didn't read everyone because I started getting a headache reading those texts

 

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0513/discovery_3/extraction_reports/report1.pdf

[knapplc]

Once again, Zimmerman was tried and found not guilty.

 

So was OJ.

 

Please, please tell me you are not implying that you feel Zimmerman was as obviously guilty as OJ. I can see drawing parallels between the two cases based on race being a primary consideration of the media but, are you also saying that GZ is no different than OJ as far as what was proven in court by the evidence?

 

Please stop reading so much into my posts. You believe I say things that I don't say far too often.

 

You're holding up our court system as something inerrant - "Zimmerman was tried and found not guilty." I'm simply pointing out that trying someone and finding them not guilty does not mean they're innocent. Nobody said OJ = George Zimmerman. Stand down.