Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (3 Viewers)

[pantherclub]

A lot of people who've never been involved in a trial talking out their butts in here.

Hopefully you're not referring to me, because I've been following YOUR lead. You were the one who convinced me that Zimmerman would have to testify.

Yes, he's referring to you.

I doubt it. But Christo can clarify.

well ive been taken to court for assault and battery many times,mostly to pay for hospital bills it seemed.. Never arrested at the scene but the person and or persons would go to the court house and file charges which i would then get summoned to court. Every time i HAD to testify simply because it was there word against mine.Nobody in that court room knew what happened but me and the other guy,and witnesses of course. So ya i believe Zimm has to tell his side of the events that night to have any chance of winning. Lokk at how much doubt there is in just this one thread . Some think zimms innocent and some dont...the jury will be no different.

You must not have had a lawyer. I've been to court for assualt charges as well. 3 times. The first time, I was 19, I had a public defender, I got on the stand, I was convicted and had to pay. The last 2 times, I had a lawyer, I never said a word in court, and it was dismissed..

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

For those asking why would M would attack Z:

We know M was in Sanford due to being suspended from school.

There is evidence that there was THC in his blood stream, and there is evidence pointing towards that he may have bought a blunt, packed it with weed and was smoking it on his walk home, you can argue all you want this didn't happen and that is fine, but it is reasonable that it did happen. He had a lighter on him and no cigarettes, I don't recall anyone saying he smoked cigarettes, there's only 1 plausible reason to carry a lighter particularly knowing his drug usage. It was a 7-11 lighter at that... It would explain why he was taking his time and acting weird "staring at houses". You can go ahead and say Z lied about this, but it is a pretty weird thing to make up, he did tell dispatch it looked like he was on drugs.

So here you have M already in trouble for school just trying to walk to the 7-11 and pickup some skittles and juice and get to enjoy some pot. He sees this guy checking him out, he (possibly) overhears him talking with what sounds like the cops on the phone as he is eavesdropping on him. He gets paranoid that this guy (who he doesn't even know) is calling the cops on him for smoking a blunt and doesn't want to get into any more trouble than he already is, and goes ballistic on him. His actions were very aggressive, not actions you would typically see if someone pulls a gun on you at a distance. If you are standing 10 yards away and someone pulls a gun on you (which people here are using as an example of what might have happened), you might scream for help although I myself would fear for getting shot, you might charge him, but again I'd have the same fear of getting shot, or you would comply with the guy with the gun since you don't want to die. Out of those three options I think you only charge at the guy for having the best shot of living if Z started verbally threatening him and you seriously thought this guy was out to murder you right then and there. It's ok for you to believe that if you really do, I just think the normal person would have to assume that behavior from Z if pretty far fetched and without any evidence to support this behavior very unlikely that is what happened.

sweet baby Jesus

As usual all bark and no bite.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

For those asking why would M would attack Z:

We know M was in Sanford due to being suspended from school.

There is evidence that there was THC in his blood stream, and there is evidence pointing towards that he may have bought a blunt, packed it with weed and was smoking it on his walk home, you can argue all you want this didn't happen and that is fine, but it is reasonable that it did happen. He had a lighter on him and no cigarettes, I don't recall anyone saying he smoked cigarettes, there's only 1 plausible reason to carry a lighter particularly knowing his drug usage. It was a 7-11 lighter at that... It would explain why he was taking his time and acting weird "staring at houses". You can go ahead and say Z lied about this, but it is a pretty weird thing to make up, he did tell dispatch it looked like he was on drugs.

So here you have M already in trouble for school just trying to walk to the 7-11 and pickup some skittles and juice and get to enjoy some pot. He sees this guy checking him out, he (possibly) overhears him talking with what sounds like the cops on the phone as he is eavesdropping on him. He gets paranoid that this guy (who he doesn't even know) is calling the cops on him for smoking a blunt and doesn't want to get into any more trouble than he already is, and goes ballistic on him. His actions were very aggressive, not actions you would typically see if someone pulls a gun on you at a distance. If you are standing 10 yards away and someone pulls a gun on you (which people here are using as an example of what might have happened), you might scream for help although I myself would fear for getting shot, you might charge him, but again I'd have the same fear of getting shot, or you would comply with the guy with the gun since you don't want to die. Out of those three options I think you only charge at the guy for having the best shot of living if Z started verbally threatening him and you seriously thought this guy was out to murder you right then and there. It's ok for you to believe that if you really do, I just think the normal person would have to assume that behavior from Z if pretty far fetched and without any evidence to support this behavior very unlikely that is what happened.

stop....just stop

 

[BustedKnuckles]

A lot of people who've never been involved in a trial talking out their butts in here.

Hopefully you're not referring to me, because I've been following YOUR lead. You were the one who convinced me that Zimmerman would have to testify.

Yes, he's referring to you.

I doubt it. But Christo can clarify.

well ive been taken to court for assault and battery many times,mostly to pay for hospital bills it seemed.. Never arrested at the scene but the person and or persons would go to the court house and file charges which i would then get summoned to court. Every time i HAD to testify simply because it was there word against mine.Nobody in that court room knew what happened but me and the other guy,and witnesses of course. So ya i believe Zimm has to tell his side of the events that night to have any chance of winning. Lokk at how much doubt there is in just this one thread . Some think zimms innocent and some dont...the jury will be no different.

You must not have had a lawyer. I've been to court for assualt charges as well. 3 times. The first time, I was 19, I had a public defender, I got on the stand, I was convicted and had to pay. The last 2 times, I had a lawyer, I never said a word in court, and it was dismissed..

i know right?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

For those asking why would M would attack Z:

We know M was in Sanford due to being suspended from school.

There is evidence that there was THC in his blood stream, and there is evidence pointing towards that he may have bought a blunt, packed it with weed and was smoking it on his walk home, you can argue all you want this didn't happen and that is fine, but it is reasonable that it did happen. He had a lighter on him and no cigarettes, I don't recall anyone saying he smoked cigarettes, there's only 1 plausible reason to carry a lighter particularly knowing his drug usage. It was a 7-11 lighter at that... It would explain why he was taking his time and acting weird "staring at houses". You can go ahead and say Z lied about this, but it is a pretty weird thing to make up, he did tell dispatch it looked like he was on drugs.

So here you have M already in trouble for school just trying to walk to the 7-11 and pickup some skittles and juice and get to enjoy some pot. He sees this guy checking him out, he (possibly) overhears him talking with what sounds like the cops on the phone as he is eavesdropping on him. He gets paranoid that this guy (who he doesn't even know) is calling the cops on him for smoking a blunt and doesn't want to get into any more trouble than he already is, and goes ballistic on him. His actions were very aggressive, not actions you would typically see if someone pulls a gun on you at a distance. If you are standing 10 yards away and someone pulls a gun on you (which people here are using as an example of what might have happened), you might scream for help although I myself would fear for getting shot, you might charge him, but again I'd have the same fear of getting shot, or you would comply with the guy with the gun since you don't want to die. Out of those three options I think you only charge at the guy for having the best shot of living if Z started verbally threatening him and you seriously thought this guy was out to murder you right then and there. It's ok for you to believe that if you really do, I just think the normal person would have to assume that behavior from Z if pretty far fetched and without any evidence to support this behavior very unlikely that is what happened.

stop....just stop

It's hard for you to apply reason and logic, I get it.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

For those asking why would M would attack Z:

We know M was in Sanford due to being suspended from school.

There is evidence that there was THC in his blood stream, and there is evidence pointing towards that he may have bought a blunt, packed it with weed and was smoking it on his walk home, you can argue all you want this didn't happen and that is fine, but it is reasonable that it did happen. He had a lighter on him and no cigarettes, I don't recall anyone saying he smoked cigarettes, there's only 1 plausible reason to carry a lighter particularly knowing his drug usage. It was a 7-11 lighter at that... It would explain why he was taking his time and acting weird "staring at houses". You can go ahead and say Z lied about this, but it is a pretty weird thing to make up, he did tell dispatch it looked like he was on drugs.

So here you have M already in trouble for school just trying to walk to the 7-11 and pickup some skittles and juice and get to enjoy some pot. He sees this guy checking him out, he (possibly) overhears him talking with what sounds like the cops on the phone as he is eavesdropping on him. He gets paranoid that this guy (who he doesn't even know) is calling the cops on him for smoking a blunt and doesn't want to get into any more trouble than he already is, and goes ballistic on him. His actions were very aggressive, not actions you would typically see if someone pulls a gun on you at a distance. If you are standing 10 yards away and someone pulls a gun on you (which people here are using as an example of what might have happened), you might scream for help although I myself would fear for getting shot, you might charge him, but again I'd have the same fear of getting shot, or you would comply with the guy with the gun since you don't want to die. Out of those three options I think you only charge at the guy for having the best shot of living if Z started verbally threatening him and you seriously thought this guy was out to murder you right then and there. It's ok for you to believe that if you really do, I just think the normal person would have to assume that behavior from Z if pretty far fetched and without any evidence to support this behavior very unlikely that is what happened.

stop....just stop

It's hard for you to apply reason and logic, I get it.

could you even begin to imagine the Defense using this argument? With the weed and all? Might as well just throw zimm in jail right now and throw away the key

 

[timschochet]

Tim - rooting, really? you can be a world-class tool when you want to.

Do you really think it's incorrect or bad taste or rude of me to state that there are rooting interests in this thread? I'm not ashamed of admitting that I am rooting for the prosecution, since I believe Zimmerman was a murderer. That doesn't mean I don't want to see justice done. There are others here who are rooting for the defense because they strongly believe Zimmerman to be innocent. Pointing this out is no slight on them, IMO.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

For those asking why would M would attack Z:

We know M was in Sanford due to being suspended from school.

There is evidence that there was THC in his blood stream, and there is evidence pointing towards that he may have bought a blunt, packed it with weed and was smoking it on his walk home, you can argue all you want this didn't happen and that is fine, but it is reasonable that it did happen. He had a lighter on him and no cigarettes, I don't recall anyone saying he smoked cigarettes, there's only 1 plausible reason to carry a lighter particularly knowing his drug usage. It was a 7-11 lighter at that... It would explain why he was taking his time and acting weird "staring at houses". You can go ahead and say Z lied about this, but it is a pretty weird thing to make up, he did tell dispatch it looked like he was on drugs.

So here you have M already in trouble for school just trying to walk to the 7-11 and pickup some skittles and juice and get to enjoy some pot. He sees this guy checking him out, he (possibly) overhears him talking with what sounds like the cops on the phone as he is eavesdropping on him. He gets paranoid that this guy (who he doesn't even know) is calling the cops on him for smoking a blunt and doesn't want to get into any more trouble than he already is, and goes ballistic on him. His actions were very aggressive, not actions you would typically see if someone pulls a gun on you at a distance. If you are standing 10 yards away and someone pulls a gun on you (which people here are using as an example of what might have happened), you might scream for help although I myself would fear for getting shot, you might charge him, but again I'd have the same fear of getting shot, or you would comply with the guy with the gun since you don't want to die. Out of those three options I think you only charge at the guy for having the best shot of living if Z started verbally threatening him and you seriously thought this guy was out to murder you right then and there. It's ok for you to believe that if you really do, I just think the normal person would have to assume that behavior from Z if pretty far fetched and without any evidence to support this behavior very unlikely that is what happened.

stop....just stop

It's hard for you to apply reason and logic, I get it.

could you even begin to imagine the Defense using this argument? With the weed and all? Might as well just throw zimm in jail right now and throw away the key

They don't need to use this defense. It doesn't detract from the plausibility of what really happened, it is better than any narrative you have given up until this point.

The premise of my post was trying to understand M's state of mind. We'll never know what he was thinking, but the picture I painted is reasonable.

 

[timschochet]

I'll give you this, JoJo: the defense must develop some sort of plausible reason for Martin to have attacked Zimmerman. If they don't, then the jury will likely be inclined not to believe Zimmerman's testimony that Martin meant for him to die. (Remember that Zimmerman has already stated that Martin told Zimmerman that Zimmerman was going to die that night. Zimmerman can't leave that out of his testimony on the stand or he will be challenged by the prosecution as a liar.) So the defense must come up with something the jury can buy into.

But the problem is that your story, when expressed the way you just did, sounds really unlikely. So much so that if the defense tries it, it's going to hurt Zimmerman more than help him IMO. They're going to have to come up with something else besides pot-smoking. I just don't think it will fly.

Despite the assurances of jon mx and Toad and others here that this should be an easy acquittal and there is really no reason for a trial in the first place, I am more and more convinced that this may be a very difficult case for the defense.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

But the problem is that your story, when expressed the way you just did, sounds really unlikely. So much so that if the defense tries it, it's going to hurt Zimmerman more than help him IMO. They're going to have to come up with something else besides pot-smoking. I just don't think it will fly.

Which part is unlikely, it all adds up to his behavior that night.

The defense doesn't even need to go into the detail I did.

They can simply say once M realized Z was on the phone with the cops he got angry and assaulted Z.

I don't think the defense is on the hook for having to prove M's state of mind.

You had asked what could cause M to attack a stranger and I provided a plausible reason.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

As far as Z taking the stand, I thought this was interesting, but hey "I'm no lawyer."

Remember you are asking my opinion. I'd say about 70% chance that O'Mara wants to keep him as far away from the stand as he can so as not to be subject to cross examination. The problem that I'm hearing on another board is that he may be "forced" to take the stand tactically. The theory is that the prosecution will not present Zimmerman's statement's (written, oral, and video) into evidence as part of their primary case and will depend soley on other evidence. If they introduce into evidence Zimmerman's statements, then the defense is not likely to have Zimmerman take the stand and build their defense based on those statements. If the prosecution doesn't enter them, then in their primary case the defense can't use them either - which means to get his story out Zimmerman takes the stand. After the defense presents it's case the prosecution then get's a rebuttal, at which point they bring out the statements (written, audio, and video) during cross examination to grill Zimmerman.

The guy I quoted is firmly in the Martin camp for whatever opinions you might try to draw from the text above.

cliff notes in bold

 

[Chaos Commish]

Fwiw, Nelson has ruled against the use of voice recognition experts.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

As far as Z taking the stand, I thought this was interesting, but hey "I'm no lawyer."

Remember you are asking my opinion. I'd say about 70% chance that O'Mara wants to keep him as far away from the stand as he can so as not to be subject to cross examination. The problem that I'm hearing on another board is that he may be "forced" to take the stand tactically. The theory is that the prosecution will not present Zimmerman's statement's (written, oral, and video) into evidence as part of their primary case and will depend soley on other evidence. If they introduce into evidence Zimmerman's statements, then the defense is not likely to have Zimmerman take the stand and build their defense based on those statements. If the prosecution doesn't enter them, then in their primary case the defense can't use them either - which means to get his story out Zimmerman takes the stand. After the defense presents it's case the prosecution then get's a rebuttal, at which point they bring out the statements (written, audio, and video) during cross examination to grill Zimmerman.

The guy I quoted is firmly in the Martin camp for whatever opinions you might try to draw from the text above.

cliff notes in bold

The best thing the State could do is whatever it takes to get Zimm on the stand...he will have to explain his the inconsistencies in the several interviews he gave the police and in his 911 call...all they have to do is get him flustered and catch him in a lie. Thats the problem with doing that walk thru on video ...it could be used against him im guessing.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Fwiw, Nelson has ruled against the use of voice recognition experts.

Thats fine...it was more confusing than anything else.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Fwiw, Nelson has ruled against the use of voice recognition experts.

That's pretty huge, what is the State going to run with now? DeeDee's testimony?

 

[timschochet]

Fwiw, Nelson has ruled against the use of voice recognition experts.

That's pretty huge, what is the State going to run with now? DeeDee's testimony?

I'm still not sure you're getting this. I thought that with the blog you were quoting, it was becoming clearer to you. But just in case it isn't:

The State doesn't need to "run with" anything, because they have an open and shut case. All they have to do. initially, is prove that Zimmerman fired a gun and shot and killed Martin. That's it. And that will be easy for them to prove, because the defense acknowledges it.

Once the prosecution has provided evidence of the shooting, they can rest. It will then be up to the defense to prove that it was self-defense. The defense can only prove this by having Zimmerman take the stand, along with a number of other witnesses to corroborate Zimmerman's story. (But without Zimmerman, there will be no story to corroborate, which is why Zimmerman must take the stand.) The prosecution will then attempt to counter Zimmerman's story, through cross-examination of the witnesses, and perhaps through the presentation of new prosecution witnesses to contradict the defense witnesses. Whether they are successful at this will determine the outcome of this trial. But the point is that in this trial it is not the burden of the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman murdered Martin, but on the defense to create reasonable doubt that he didn't.

 

[greenroom]

But the problem is that your story, when expressed the way you just did, sounds really unlikely. So much so that if the defense tries it, it's going to hurt Zimmerman more than help him IMO. They're going to have to come up with something else besides pot-smoking. I just don't think it will fly.

Which part is unlikely, it all adds up to his behavior that night.

The defense doesn't even need to go into the detail I did.

They can simply say once M realized Z was on the phone with the cops he got angry and assaulted Z.

I don't think the defense is on the hook for having to prove M's state of mind.

You had asked what could cause M to attack a stranger and I provided a plausible reason.

Is M on trial? I thought Z was the one who is on trail. So all they have to show is that Z is the one that "caused" the fight, And how can they prove that M heard that Z was on the phone and that was the reason why he was angry? We know that Z was upset that previous M's had gotten away so we know his state of mind.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Fwiw, Nelson has ruled against the use of voice recognition experts.

That's pretty huge, what is the State going to run with now? DeeDee's testimony?

I'm still not sure you're getting this. I thought that with the blog you were quoting, it was becoming clearer to you. But just in case it isn't:The State doesn't need to "run with" anything, because they have an open and shut case. All they have to do. initially, is prove that Zimmerman fired a gun and shot and killed Martin. That's it. And that will be easy for them to prove, because the defense acknowledges it.

Once the prosecution has provided evidence of the shooting, they can rest. It will then be up to the defense to prove that it was self-defense. The defense can only prove this by having Zimmerman take the stand, along with a number of other witnesses to corroborate Zimmerman's story. (But without Zimmerman, there will be no story to corroborate, which is why Zimmerman must take the stand.) The prosecution will then attempt to counter Zimmerman's story, through cross-examination of the witnesses, and perhaps through the presentation of new prosecution witnesses to contradict the defense witnesses. Whether they are successful at this will determine the outcome of this trial. But the point is that in this trial it is not the burden of the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman murdered Martin, but on the defense to create reasonable doubt that he didn't.

So if the State acknowledges that Z killed M, that is all they need to do to PROVE 2nd Degree Murder?

You realize there are legal reasons to kill someone right?

The state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Z was NOT in fear of his life or grave bodily injury. Force was obviously used by both participants in the physical altercation. The state needs to be able to prove WHO initiated the physical altercation BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. I do not believe that the state has a hope of proving that Z started the physical altercation. If the state has evidence that M started the physical altercation, they have absolutely no reason to have charged Z in the first place. If, as seems to be the case, the state has no proof of who started the physical altercation, they will not be able to prove Z guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Fwiw, Nelson has ruled against the use of voice recognition experts.

That's pretty huge, what is the State going to run with now? DeeDee's testimony?

I'm still not sure you're getting this. I thought that with the blog you were quoting, it was becoming clearer to you. But just in case it isn't:The State doesn't need to "run with" anything, because they have an open and shut case. All they have to do. initially, is prove that Zimmerman fired a gun and shot and killed Martin. That's it. And that will be easy for them to prove, because the defense acknowledges it.

Once the prosecution has provided evidence of the shooting, they can rest. It will then be up to the defense to prove that it was self-defense. The defense can only prove this by having Zimmerman take the stand, along with a number of other witnesses to corroborate Zimmerman's story. (But without Zimmerman, there will be no story to corroborate, which is why Zimmerman must take the stand.) The prosecution will then attempt to counter Zimmerman's story, through cross-examination of the witnesses, and perhaps through the presentation of new prosecution witnesses to contradict the defense witnesses. Whether they are successful at this will determine the outcome of this trial. But the point is that in this trial it is not the burden of the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman murdered Martin, but on the defense to create reasonable doubt that he didn't.

So if the State acknowledges that Z killed M, that is all they need to do to PROVE 2nd Degree Murder?

You realize there are legal reasons to kill someone right?

The state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Z was NOT in fear of his life or grave bodily injury. Force was obviously used by both participants in the physical altercation. The state needs to be able to prove WHO initiated the physical altercation BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. I do not believe that the state has a hope of proving that Z started the physical altercation. If the state has evidence that M started the physical altercation, they have absolutely no reason to have charged Z in the first place. If, as seems to be the case, the state has no proof of who started the physical altercation, they will not be able to prove Z guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

You have it backwards or so it appears. Zimm has to prove he was in fear of his life ...he already admitted to killing trey,now he must convince a jury that he had no other choice. Seeing trey moved 100 yards or so away from zimm and then zimm moved 100 yards towards trey im guessing thats where the trial will get interesting.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Fwiw, Nelson has ruled against the use of voice recognition experts.

That's pretty huge, what is the State going to run with now? DeeDee's testimony?

I'm still not sure you're getting this. I thought that with the blog you were quoting, it was becoming clearer to you. But just in case it isn't:The State doesn't need to "run with" anything, because they have an open and shut case. All they have to do. initially, is prove that Zimmerman fired a gun and shot and killed Martin. That's it. And that will be easy for them to prove, because the defense acknowledges it.

Once the prosecution has provided evidence of the shooting, they can rest. It will then be up to the defense to prove that it was self-defense. The defense can only prove this by having Zimmerman take the stand, along with a number of other witnesses to corroborate Zimmerman's story. (But without Zimmerman, there will be no story to corroborate, which is why Zimmerman must take the stand.) The prosecution will then attempt to counter Zimmerman's story, through cross-examination of the witnesses, and perhaps through the presentation of new prosecution witnesses to contradict the defense witnesses. Whether they are successful at this will determine the outcome of this trial. But the point is that in this trial it is not the burden of the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman murdered Martin, but on the defense to create reasonable doubt that he didn't.

So if the State acknowledges that Z killed M, that is all they need to do to PROVE 2nd Degree Murder?

You realize there are legal reasons to kill someone right?

The state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Z was NOT in fear of his life or grave bodily injury. Force was obviously used by both participants in the physical altercation. The state needs to be able to prove WHO initiated the physical altercation BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. I do not believe that the state has a hope of proving that Z started the physical altercation. If the state has evidence that M started the physical altercation, they have absolutely no reason to have charged Z in the first place. If, as seems to be the case, the state has no proof of who started the physical altercation, they will not be able to prove Z guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

You have it backwards or so it appears. Zimm has to prove he was in fear of his life ...he already admitted to killing trey,now he must convince a jury that he had no other choice. Seeing trey moved 100 yards or so away from zimm and then zimm moved 100 yards towards trey im guessing thats where the trial will get interesting.

I'll defer to a lawyer, pretty sure you are wrong.

Look at my oversimplified example here.

the original thread discussion

This was one of the better responses from that thread:

It isn't in my jurisdiction. By contrast, insanity and duress are affirmative defenses, meaning that to asset the defense the defendant must prove that he was acting while insane or under duress by a preponderance of the evidence. Self defense, if adequately raised by the evidence, must be disproved by the state, but the key is what consititutes adequate evidence to get the self defense question to the jury.

Self defense isn't an affirmative defense here, but the law here is similar to what Northern Piper states. The defendant has the initial burden of producing some evidence to justify submission of a self-defense instruction, and the State must then persuade the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. Tidmore v. State,976 S.W.2d 724, 729 (Tex.App.–Tyler,1998, pet. ref'd). A bare bones claim that one used deadly force "in self defense" will not likely rise to the level that a self defense instruction should be given to the jury. A defendant merely claiming that they beleived that they were under attack is not enough to warrant the instruction; there has to be some evidence of each of the statutory conditions justifying deadly force. Halbert v. State, 881 S.W.2d 121, 125-26 (Tex.App.–Hous. [1 Dist.],1994, pet. ref'd) Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 9.32 (Vernon Supp.1994). The "some evidence" requirement can conisist solely of the the testimony of the defendant (Id. at 124), but that testimony has to show that if believed it would qualify as a legal justification for the use of deadly force in self defense - merely claiming "it was self defense" won't cut it.

That's not to say that the state should automatically win in the hypo, though; for one thing, they havn't even proven that the death happened within the court's jurisdiction, and the defendant definitely has a claim for ineffective assitance. If the defendant is taking the stand he's doing so in the defense's case in chief, and the fact that the state apparently rested without putting on any evidence means the case should have been unproven had the defendant not testified. The hypo raises some interesting questions about self defense and burdens of proof, but as it stands the only thing we can say for sure that a higher court would do is refer everyone involved to the bar to have their licenses yanked.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Fwiw, Nelson has ruled against the use of voice recognition experts.

That's pretty huge, what is the State going to run with now? DeeDee's testimony?

I'm still not sure you're getting this. I thought that with the blog you were quoting, it was becoming clearer to you. But just in case it isn't:

The State doesn't need to "run with" anything, because they have an open and shut case. All they have to do. initially, is prove that Zimmerman fired a gun and shot and killed Martin. That's it. And that will be easy for them to prove, because the defense acknowledges it.

Once the prosecution has provided evidence of the shooting, they can rest. It will then be up to the defense to prove that it was self-defense. The defense can only prove this by having Zimmerman take the stand, along with a number of other witnesses to corroborate Zimmerman's story. (But without Zimmerman, there will be no story to corroborate, which is why Zimmerman must take the stand.) The prosecution will then attempt to counter Zimmerman's story, through cross-examination of the witnesses, and perhaps through the presentation of new prosecution witnesses to contradict the defense witnesses. Whether they are successful at this will determine the outcome of this trial. But the point is that in this trial it is not the burden of the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman murdered Martin, but on the defense to create reasonable doubt that he didn't.

Um.... That is exactly what the burden is.

murdered<>killed

 

[jon_mx]

Fwiw, Nelson has ruled against the use of voice recognition experts.

That's pretty huge, what is the State going to run with now? DeeDee's testimony?

I'm still not sure you're getting this. I thought that with the blog you were quoting, it was becoming clearer to you. But just in case it isn't:

The State doesn't need to "run with" anything, because they have an open and shut case. All they have to do. initially, is prove that Zimmerman fired a gun and shot and killed Martin. That's it. And that will be easy for them to prove, because the defense acknowledges it.

Once the prosecution has provided evidence of the shooting, they can rest. It will then be up to the defense to prove that it was self-defense. The defense can only prove this by having Zimmerman take the stand, along with a number of other witnesses to corroborate Zimmerman's story. (But without Zimmerman, there will be no story to corroborate, which is why Zimmerman must take the stand.) The prosecution will then attempt to counter Zimmerman's story, through cross-examination of the witnesses, and perhaps through the presentation of new prosecution witnesses to contradict the defense witnesses. Whether they are successful at this will determine the outcome of this trial. But the point is that in this trial it is not the burden of the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman murdered Martin, but on the defense to create reasonable doubt that he didn't.

Your explanation is not only shallow, it is incorrect. The prosecution will have to prove second degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Once the defense provides evidence that it was self-defense, then the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt must prove it was not self-defense. If they would have went for a per-trial ruling with the judge, it would have been by preponderance of evidence on the self-defense claim to have the case thrown out.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Just found this....Florida is one ####-ed up state thats for sure.

Numerous cases have set the precedent in Florida, with the courts arguing that the 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." When a defendant claims self-defense, "the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense." In other words the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts from the prosecution, so it's surprisingly easy to evade prosecution by claiming self-defense.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Just found this....Florida is one ####-ed up state thats for sure.

Numerous cases have set the precedent in Florida, with the courts arguing that the 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." When a defendant claims self-defense, "the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense." In other words the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts from the prosecution, so it's surprisingly easy to evade prosecution by claiming self-defense.

FL is a pro-victim state, not a pro-bully state.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Just found this....Florida is one ####-ed up state thats for sure.

Numerous cases have set the precedent in Florida, with the courts arguing that the 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." When a defendant claims self-defense, "the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense." In other words the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts from the prosecution, so it's surprisingly easy to evade prosecution by claiming self-defense.

FL is a pro-victim state, not a pro-bully state.

unfortunately the bullies benefit from Fla crazy laws as much as the true victims do

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I think Zimm should have run away from Trey as soon as he said trey approached him...

 

[Christo]

Just found this....Florida is one ####-ed up state thats for sure.

Numerous cases have set the precedent in Florida, with the courts arguing that the 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." When a defendant claims self-defense, "the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense." In other words the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts from the prosecution, so it's surprisingly easy to evade prosecution by claiming self-defense.

You just found that? You didn't read it in here the 27 gajillion times I've said it?

 

[Mark Davis]

Just found this....Florida is one ####-ed up state thats for sure.

Numerous cases have set the precedent in Florida, with the courts arguing that the 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." When a defendant claims self-defense, "the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense." In other words the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts from the prosecution, so it's surprisingly easy to evade prosecution by claiming self-defense.

This was what I had always heard. Right after this case first started getting big exposure, CNN did a segment showing 2 or 3 families who had lost someone in "stand your ground" situations in the State of Florida. One of the key cases they used was an adult who shot a teenager near a playground after he had asked them to hold it down or whatever. He went to the playground, claimed the teen came toward him in a violent manner and was forced to shoot him. The case they were making is that while the Zimmerman case has huge racial overtones, in that case the shooter was black and the victim was white. The Stand Your Ground rule was also applied in that case and the shooter was cleared. Based on history it would seem very unlikely Zimmerman would be convicted, likely why the initial prosecutor passed on the case.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

I think Zimm should have run away from Trey as soon as he said trey approached him...

Do you run away from every teenager you see at night?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I think Zimm should have run away from Trey as soon as he said trey approached him...

Do you run away from every teenager you see at night?

do you follow every teenager you see at night?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

I think Zimm should have run away from Trey as soon as he said trey approached him...

Do you run away from every teenager you see at night?

do you follow every teenager you see at night?

I didn't make the suggestion.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I think Zimm should have run away from Trey as soon as he said trey approached him...

Do you run away from every teenager you see at night?

do you follow every teenager you see at night?

I didn't make the suggestion.

but my suggestion wasnt towards you ...it towards zimm...yet you felt the need answer it with question...i just did the same

 

[BustedKnuckles]

well thats enough for today ...going out to have fun and watch the Bruins win tonight(hopefully)...i suggest y `all do the same(jo jo )

 

[jon_mx]

Imagine that. The prosecution has to prove its case. What a shocking revelation. What kind of messed up country is this. Can't we just lock up people because Tim feels that way.

 

[ducktales]

I think Zimm should have run away from Trey as soon as he said trey approached him...

Do you run away from every teenager you see at night?

do you follow every teenager you see at night?

Doesn't matter if he should have followed him or not --this is a trick--, that literally has nothing to do with what happened.

If someone is following you you aren't legally allowed to start bashing their head into the concrete. and if someone is bashing your head into the concrete you are legally allowed to defend yourself --even if it means that the other person might die--.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Tim - rooting, really? you can be a world-class tool when you want to.

Do you really think it's incorrect or bad taste or rude of me to state that there are rooting interests in this thread? I'm not ashamed of admitting that I am rooting for the prosecution, since I believe Zimmerman was a murderer. That doesn't mean I don't want to see justice done. There are others here who are rooting for the defense because they strongly believe Zimmerman to be innocent. Pointing this out is no slight on them, IMO.

Yes, I do think it is incorrect, and is in bad taste, but maybe you have a different usage of "rooting" than I do. I am hoping for a fair trail for the accused; nothing more than what would be offered to anyone else. I do not believe that Zimmerman set out to murder anyone that night or any night, he doesn't seem the type, but if he is found guilty by a fair trial then fine. I laugh at you projecting racial bigotry to anyone who has a differing view and interpreting their vocalized viewpoint as "rooting".

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Tim - rooting, really? you can be a world-class tool when you want to.

Do you really think it's incorrect or bad taste or rude of me to state that there are rooting interests in this thread? I'm not ashamed of admitting that I am rooting for the prosecution, since I believe Zimmerman was a murderer. That doesn't mean I don't want to see justice done. There are others here who are rooting for the defense because they strongly believe Zimmerman to be innocent. Pointing this out is no slight on them, IMO.

Yes, I do think it is incorrect, and is in bad taste, but maybe you have a different usage of "rooting" than I do. I am hoping for a fair trail for the accused; nothing more than what would be offered to anyone else. I do not believe that Zimmerman set out to murder anyone that night or any night, he doesn't seem the type, but if he is found guilty by a fair trial then fine. I laugh at you projecting racial bigotry to anyone who has a differing view and interpreting their vocalized viewpoint as "rooting".

well one of the biggest issues was the fact that this shooting almost got swept under the rug ...i was only rooting for zimmerman to answer for this ...that would have been just as unjust if he wasnt even arrested . Let him have his day in court .its the least the family of treyvon martin deserved .

 

[jon_mx]

Tim - rooting, really? you can be a world-class tool when you want to.

Do you really think it's incorrect or bad taste or rude of me to state that there are rooting interests in this thread? I'm not ashamed of admitting that I am rooting for the prosecution, since I believe Zimmerman was a murderer. That doesn't mean I don't want to see justice done. There are others here who are rooting for the defense because they strongly believe Zimmerman to be innocent. Pointing this out is no slight on them, IMO.

Yes, I do think it is incorrect, and is in bad taste, but maybe you have a different usage of "rooting" than I do. I am hoping for a fair trail for the accused; nothing more than what would be offered to anyone else. I do not believe that Zimmerman set out to murder anyone that night or any night, he doesn't seem the type, but if he is found guilty by a fair trial then fine. I laugh at you projecting racial bigotry to anyone who has a differing view and interpreting their vocalized viewpoint as "rooting".

well one of the biggest issues was the fact that this shooting almost got swept under the rug ...i was only rooting for zimmerman to answer for this ...that would have been just as unjust if he wasnt even arrested . Let him have his day in court .its the least the family of treyvon martin deserved .

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Fwiw, Nelson has ruled against the use of voice recognition experts.

That's pretty huge, what is the State going to run with now? DeeDee's testimony?

I'm still not sure you're getting this. I thought that with the blog you were quoting, it was becoming clearer to you. But just in case it isn't:The State doesn't need to "run with" anything, because they have an open and shut case. All they have to do. initially, is prove that Zimmerman fired a gun and shot and killed Martin. That's it. And that will be easy for them to prove, because the defense acknowledges it.

Once the prosecution has provided evidence of the shooting, they can rest. It will then be up to the defense to prove that it was self-defense. The defense can only prove this by having Zimmerman take the stand, along with a number of other witnesses to corroborate Zimmerman's story. (But without Zimmerman, there will be no story to corroborate, which is why Zimmerman must take the stand.) The prosecution will then attempt to counter Zimmerman's story, through cross-examination of the witnesses, and perhaps through the presentation of new prosecution witnesses to contradict the defense witnesses. Whether they are successful at this will determine the outcome of this trial. But the point is that in this trial it is not the burden of the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman murdered Martin, but on the defense to create reasonable doubt that he didn't.

So if the State acknowledges that Z killed M, that is all they need to do to PROVE 2nd Degree Murder?

You realize there are legal reasons to kill someone right?

The state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Z was NOT in fear of his life or grave bodily injury. Force was obviously used by both participants in the physical altercation. The state needs to be able to prove WHO initiated the physical altercation BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. I do not believe that the state has a hope of proving that Z started the physical altercation. If the state has evidence that M started the physical altercation, they have absolutely no reason to have charged Z in the first place. If, as seems to be the case, the state has no proof of who started the physical altercation, they will not be able to prove Z guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

You have it backwards or so it appears. Zimm has to prove he was in fear of his life ...he already admitted to killing trey,now he must convince a jury that he had no other choice. Seeing trey moved 100 yards or so away from zimm and then zimm moved 100 yards towards trey im guessing thats where the trial will get interesting.

Not sure why you guys keep saying this.. It's not true.. The prosecution has to prove that he wasn't..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Fwiw, Nelson has ruled against the use of voice recognition experts.

That's pretty huge, what is the State going to run with now? DeeDee's testimony?

I'm still not sure you're getting this. I thought that with the blog you were quoting, it was becoming clearer to you. But just in case it isn't:

The State doesn't need to "run with" anything, because they have an open and shut case. All they have to do. initially, is prove that Zimmerman fired a gun and shot and killed Martin. That's it. And that will be easy for them to prove, because the defense acknowledges it.

Once the prosecution has provided evidence of the shooting, they can rest. It will then be up to the defense to prove that it was self-defense. The defense can only prove this by having Zimmerman take the stand, along with a number of other witnesses to corroborate Zimmerman's story. (But without Zimmerman, there will be no story to corroborate, which is why Zimmerman must take the stand.) The prosecution will then attempt to counter Zimmerman's story, through cross-examination of the witnesses, and perhaps through the presentation of new prosecution witnesses to contradict the defense witnesses. Whether they are successful at this will determine the outcome of this trial. But the point is that in this trial it is not the burden of the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman murdered Martin, but on the defense to create reasonable doubt that he didn't.

You can say it a million times.. You'll be wrong a million times..

 

[ducktales]

Fwiw, Nelson has ruled against the use of voice recognition experts.

That's pretty huge, what is the State going to run with now? DeeDee's testimony?

I'm still not sure you're getting this. I thought that with the blog you were quoting, it was becoming clearer to you. But just in case it isn't:

The State doesn't need to "run with" anything, because they have an open and shut case. All they have to do. initially, is prove that Zimmerman fired a gun and shot and killed Martin. That's it. And that will be easy for them to prove, because the defense acknowledges it.

Once the prosecution has provided evidence of the shooting, they can rest. It will then be up to the defense to prove that it was self-defense. The defense can only prove this by having Zimmerman take the stand, along with a number of other witnesses to corroborate Zimmerman's story. (But without Zimmerman, there will be no story to corroborate, which is why Zimmerman must take the stand.) The prosecution will then attempt to counter Zimmerman's story, through cross-examination of the witnesses, and perhaps through the presentation of new prosecution witnesses to contradict the defense witnesses. Whether they are successful at this will determine the outcome of this trial. But the point is that in this trial it is not the burden of the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman murdered Martin, but on the defense to create reasonable doubt that he didn't.

You can say it a million times.. You'll be wrong a million times..

but isn't it guilty until proven innocent?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

but isn't it guilty until proven innocent?

It certainly was/is for Martin.

 

[ducktales]

but isn't it guilty until proven innocent?

It certainly was/is for Martin.

lol he never went to court ??? what are you talking about

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

but isn't it guilty until proven innocent?

It certainly was/is for Martin.

lol he never went to court ??? what are you talking about

The court of public opinion. The opinion represented in this thread where a vicious seasoned thug Martin was enjoying his gateway blunt on the way back to the lab to turn skittles and tea in to PCP until Zimmerman made the mistake of crossing this homicidal maniac's path.ETA: For Christ's sakes he was wearing a hoodie!

 

[ducktales]

but isn't it guilty until proven innocent?

It certainly was/is for Martin.

lol he never went to court ??? what are you talking about

The court of public opinion. The opinion represented in this thread where a vicious seasoned thug Martin was enjoying his gateway blunt on the way back to the lab to turn skittles and tea in to PCP until Zimmerman made the mistake of crossing this homicidal maniac's path.

So when i respond to people talking about an actual court you bring up public opinion as if that is a valid response why? I guess when you have a certain bias --its clear you want zimmerman to be found guilty-- it is hard to think logical.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

but isn't it guilty until proven innocent?

It certainly was/is for Martin.

lol he never went to court ??? what are you talking about

The court of public opinion. The opinion represented in this thread where a vicious seasoned thug Martin was enjoying his gateway blunt on the way back to the lab to turn skittles and tea in to PCP until Zimmerman made the mistake of crossing this homicidal maniac's path.

So when i respond to people talking about an actual court you bring up public opinion as if that is a valid response why? I guess when you have a certain bias --its clear you want zimmerman to be found guilty-- it is hard to think logical.

As already noted on this thread, it is difficult to separate my bias towards the outrageous claims made by Zimmerman's supporters from Zimmerman himself, but I think it easy to believe that someone who sees trouble everywhere he looks was in fear of his life which seems enough to qualify as a self defense defense.Also, I can and will respond to any post in any way I like within the site's terms of service.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

but isn't it guilty until proven innocent?

It certainly was/is for Martin.

lol he never went to court ??? what are you talking about

The court of public opinion. The opinion represented in this thread where a vicious seasoned thug Martin was enjoying his gateway blunt on the way back to the lab to turn skittles and tea in to PCP until Zimmerman made the mistake of crossing this homicidal maniac's path.ETA: For Christ's sakes he was wearing a hoodie!

You should stop using your mind to think and just start punching people and bashing their heads against the pavement.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

but isn't it guilty until proven innocent?

It certainly was/is for Martin.

lol he never went to court ??? what are you talking about

The court of public opinion. The opinion represented in this thread where a vicious seasoned thug Martin was enjoying his gateway blunt on the way back to the lab to turn skittles and tea in to PCP until Zimmerman made the mistake of crossing this homicidal maniac's path.ETA: For Christ's sakes he was wearing a hoodie!

You should stop using your mind to think and just start punching people and bashing their heads against the pavement.

why do i get the feeling that JO JO the clown has been bullied a lot in his life time

 

[ducktales]

but isn't it guilty until proven innocent?

It certainly was/is for Martin.

lol he never went to court ??? what are you talking about

The court of public opinion. The opinion represented in this thread where a vicious seasoned thug Martin was enjoying his gateway blunt on the way back to the lab to turn skittles and tea in to PCP until Zimmerman made the mistake of crossing this homicidal maniac's path.

So when i respond to people talking about an actual court you bring up public opinion as if that is a valid response why? I guess when you have a certain bias --its clear you want zimmerman to be found guilty-- it is hard to think logical.

As already noted on this thread, it is difficult to separate my bias towards the outrageous claims made by Zimmerman's supporters from Zimmerman himself, but I think it easy to believe that someone who sees trouble everywhere he looks was in fear of his life which seems enough to qualify as a self defense defense.Also, I can and will respond to any post in any way I like within the site's terms of service.

I didn't say you couldn't respond I am just saying it isn't a valid response --do you know the difference??--.

 

[timschochet]

Whatever. You guys can take what I wrote and twist it any way you like. Here's what I know: in any trial that makes the slightest sense at all, Zimmerman needs to testify. And when he does, the prosecution will try to tear him a new #######, and that's what I am waiting for. If he can survive that cross-examination, he deserves to be acquitted. But we'll see if he can survive it, the lying ####er.

If however, jon and others are right and somehow, because of the ####ed up Florida laws, Zimmerman manages to avoid testifying, and he ends up with an acquittal anyhow, then we will have a terrible miscarriage of justice.

So am I rooting for Zimmerman to be forced to testify? You bet your ###. Am I rooting for him to go down? You bet your ###. He's a racist murderer who deserves to be put away. I'm hoping for it.

ETA- I may have had a little too much to drink tonight. I may look differently at this in the morning...