I object, your honor.
Maybe the distinction is too subtle for me. I question whether the prosecution has enough, or any, evidence that could convince a jury that Zimmerman intended to murder Martin. The jury will be looking at this from a “common man” point of view, people without a law degree point of view.
Yes. You’re absolutely right that if fear were an element of the offense, then some testimony would have to place that fear into evidence.
But here, we’re not talking about an element of the offense, but an element of the defense. For this, the jury is allowed to infer fear from the actions, words, or circumstances that are in evidence.
Zimmerman is charged with second degree murder. To prove his guilt, the prosecution must prove:
Treyvon Martin is dead.
The death was caused by the criminal act of George Zimmerman.
There was an unlawful killing of Treyvon Martin by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.
George Zimmerman did not reasonably believe that his use of deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.
The killing happened in Seminole County in the State of Florida.
That’s all. The prosecution does NOT have to prove that Zimmerman intended to murder Martin.
If they had charged him with first degree murder, they would. But not second degree.
And this isn’t lost on a “common man” point of view, people without a law degree point of view. Because the jury will get a set of instructions that lay this out very clearly. They won’t simply be asked, “Guilty or not guilty?” They will be told each and every element, and asked on the form to indicate that they have found each and every element.
I’ll try to provide a link to another newspaper.
Point of interest. Anita Smithey filed for the SYG hearing back in October.
Those show that he thought he needed help.
But they don’t seem to establish that he shot TM because of a reasonable fear based on something outside of the one which GZ mentioned–TM going for the gun. imho.
ymmv.
Cool. So a juror is allowed to create his or her own case (more or less) based on what they have determined to be the facts w/o regard to any rationale which is presented or not presented by the defense.
That’d be handy if I were the defendant. Hopefully, I’ll never have any need of that from a juror. But, sometimes people end up neck deep in craziness through no fault of their own.
Of course, if I were a juror, the fact that GZ doesn’t report or show signs of doing diddly during his beating–not even some of the basic reflexive actions I would expect–would weigh in my decision about what his state of mind was during the beating if I chose to find that there was such a beating.
He obviously was injured.
But given what I see as significant problems with his story and the timeline, I don’t think I would be inclined to give his account very much weight in areas where it wasn’t independently corroborated.
I do have a question. Isn’t every ambiguity in a case supposed to be in favor of the defendant?
If Zimmerman was fearful he had ample opportunity to get back to his truck. Hey, wait a minute…
Isn’t that where Zimmerman said he was headed? Trayvon’s girlfriend said Trayvon was near his father’s house, and a few minutes later the fight ensued near the T. If Trayvon was still at the T several minutes earlier Zimmerman would still have been on the phone with the dispatcher while Zimmerman walked by the T, and the two would have literally bumped into each other. Either DeeDee’s account of things is ill remembered, or Trayvon Martin returned to the T, as Zimmerman claimed. Trayvon Martin had ample opportunity to leave the area.
So he says … so he says. But then so many things Zimmerman says later turn out to be not the case at all. So where does that leave us? I mean, somehow he was shot a fair distance down the sidewalk away from the T, so how did that happen if Zimmerman stopped at the T and then started back for his Truck? Wouldn’t the shooting have then occurred on the way back to his truck somewhere? How did it happen where it did if Zimmerman was really on the way back to his truck from the T when Martin ‘jumped him from behind’? It doesn’t add up at all.
The T is near his father’s house though. You are using too narrow a definition of the word near. It doesn’t necessarily mean literally within arms reach of the house. He’s talking to his girlfriend in another city who is worried about him being followed by a creep in the dark. He could have said he was near the house to reassure her while he was hiding from the creep (again near the house, since its pretty much right there at the end of the sidewalk right). So you can’t conclude that he went all the way to within arms reach of the house and then came back to the T itching to beat on Zimmerman. You can assume thats what happened, but it is far from an established fact and is not proven by anything in evidence.
I play tennis all the time at the courts near my house. They are 3 blocks away. But they are still ‘near’ my house, correct? So if I say I’m playing tennis near my house, does that mean to you that I’m somehow playing in my backyard or something?
Why was Martin under any obligation to leave the area? Why was him merely being outside instead of at home taken as evidence that he intended to “rumble” with Zimmerman, but the fact that:
Zimmerman exited from his truck with a gun just as soon as Martin ran away from him,
while doing this, he flat out told the dispatcher that he was following Martin, and
he wound up shooting Martin no where near the T…
…how is none of this evidence of Zimmerman’s culpability, and yet Martin’s failure to conclusively demonstrate outright terror somehow means he was the likely aggressor?
This logic is so twisted and bizarre…I feel like I’m staring at a three-headed duckbill platypus reading some of yall’s posts.
The basic point being made here doesn’t change if Martin was on a bluetooth device rather than a wired headset. The point is that a person on a hands free call appears spaced-out. You could have even corrected the factual mistake and addressed the actual issue at the same time.
But if we’re being incredibly nitpicky
Martin’s knuckle was not injured.
Martin’s parents plural did not say that the scream was not from their son. His mother identified the screams as being his right from the start. His father originally did not, via a whispered no, but come on: the guy just lost his son, is being made to listen to heartrending screams made during the shooting: is anyone surprised that he might have whispered “no,” no matter what he really thought here?
Per his account, Zimmerman did not check to see if Martin was dead. Rather, his story is that he didn’t realize Martin was shot, and was attempting to restrain him.
What’s the evidence that Zimmerman got out of his truck to follow Martin? Well, if we can believe anything that Zimmerman says, the evidence is that Zimmerman said “I meant that I was going in the same direction as him, to keep an eye on him so that I could tell the police where he was going.”
What difference does it make if Martin said “you got me” or not? It makes a huge difference if we are deciding to believe anything that Zimmerman says or not. As you point out, Martin died almost at once, and even before technical brain death would have set in, would not have had the ability to sit up and speak. So Zimmerman either:
a) hallucinated the you got me part of the evening
or
b) made it up right out of whole cloth.
Thus, how can we believe a word he says? Why would anyone with a clear conscience and a story of straight-up self-defense feel the need to gild the lily and add on conversation?
Not out of whole cloth.
But if a person is struck by a fist and suffers a broken nose, to infer that the person felt fear is hardly “w/o regard to any rationale,” is it?
Well, that’s of course up to you.
But you might want to turn the question around.
For each of the elements I listed above — the ones the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt – ask yourself what evidence you’d rely upon to conclude it. And remember that you CANNOT rely on inference for an element of the crime.
Some of them are easy – no one questions the finding that the killing happened in Seminole County, in the state of Florida.
How do we know this to be true?
A tiny scratch below one knuckle on his left hand.
I’ve gotten similar ‘injuries’ from reaching into a cabinet, opening a door, playing basketball, opening a can of tennis balls, pulling a hard drive out of a computer, putting on my shoes, opening a window, and many other ordinary activities.
You are certain that this must have come from a sustained, savage beating? This is proof of savage and sustained violence to you?
And George says he was punched in the face ‘over a dozen times’.
Thisdoes not look like the face of a man punched over a dozen times.
This is evidence that the part of Zimmerman’s account claiming that Martin sucker punched him in the face, breaking his nose and blackening his eyes, is true. It is also evidence that Martin was the first to initiate violence. The lacerations to the back of Zimmerman’s head are evidence that the part of Zimmerman’s account where he says Martin was on top of him beating his head on the ground, is true. (This part of the account is also backed up by witnesses who said they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.)
So, again, assuming to be true only those parts of Zimmerman’s account which are backed up by evidence, Martin attacked Zimmerman, blackening his eyes and breaking his nose, then jumped on top of him and bashed his head on the ground. ISTM that it is reasonable to classify a beating which breaks your nose, blackens your eyes, and puts gashes in the back of your head, as ‘serious’. ‘Sustained’? Depends on your definitions - the fight went on for what, a minute or so? ‘Savage’ is too emotive a word to admit of exact definition - I would say that an attack that inflicted that kind of injury, and which was legally and morally unprovoked, could be classified that way.
Regards,
Shodan
Well this is just more duckbill platypus hilarity. Zimmerman’s own words are evidence that he exited his truck to follow Martin.
In your world, what do you think this is evidence of?
