Bricker has explained this many times over. The state has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant does not.
True. But if you are going to claim ‘we know he’s lying because nobody ever speaks after being shot thru the heart, therefore we cannot believe any of the rest of his testimony’, then you are going to wind up looking a little silly when the FBI testifies that it does happen. Not to mention that every deer hunter in court is going to be laughing at you.
Regards,
Shodan
A deer can talk after being shot through the heart? Amazing.
Might want to check who you’re attributing quotes to, Einstein.
Regards,
Shodan
Deer talk after they’re shot through the heart? What do they say?
“You got me.”
Just because Z is not a reliable source of information does not mean that he is guilty of a crime though.
I find his story to have omissions and fabrications.
I suspect that this condition is because GZ believed that he had a good reason to lie.
But, I am not confident in GZ’s judgment enough to go from there to GZ did something which disqualifies his SD claim. I will go to GZ did something which he thought might disqualify his SD claim.
But that’s not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think that w/e the prosecution has, it will be derived from a correlation of data that forces us to reach a conclusion rather than some single piece of evidence.
Rosebud?
The biggest lack in the state’s evidence is their inability to disprove self-defense. So I am picturing that Zimmerman’s text messages include some kind of “Afraid? Of him? No way would that punk scare me!” that would scuttle his claim of fear.
Also fatal to the state’s case is how they’re going to prove the depraved mind element of second degree. That’s generally a question of fact, but the state can’t simply just say, “Well, he had a gun; do the math.” As a matter of law, merely carrying a gun legally cannot create the depraved intent required by second degree murder.
I personally find him untrustworthy. If I had to guess, I’d guess he said something insulting to Martin and Martin hit him first. The details Zimmerman gave I don’t believe at all.
I take it you haven’t reviewed Florida case law to look for examples of what kind of conduct is necessary to reach the “depraved” standard? And I also take it you have forgotten the rule in Florida that elements of the crime cannot be established by inference?
I agree their evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin. Beyond that, I don’t see the facts for ill will beyond a reasonable doubt, as I suggested above. Also, the state must DISprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
I am pretty sure Zimmerman has lied. But rejecting his statement does not mean the record proves the opposite. The record has to contain affirmative proof of the opposite; the jury cannot say, in effect, “Since we think he’s lying, we conclude the opposite of what he said happened.”
Wasn’t Zimmerman’s bloody flashlight found nearer the T? If so, that has to mean something.
Lilian fofana?
Banana fana fofana?
Mee-Mi momana?
Is that you?
His wounds undercut his claim of being in reasonable fear. Kids scuffling at the playground routinely come away with worse injuries than he did.
The lack of defensive injuries on Martin’s body also destroy his claim of being in fear of Martin. Prior to the release of his statement, the gallery explained this away by insisting that Zimmerman’s arms must have been heremetically pinned by Martin’s thighs of steel. But that doesn’t hold now that it’s come out that Zimmerman, by his own account, had his hands free the entire time. And not once did he inflict any defensive injuries to Martin’s hands or arms despite having plenty opportunity to do so, if he was getting beaten as claimed.
But most importantly, Martin was killed yards away from the T. If Zimmerman had reasonable fear of Martin while he was getting his ass beaten where he said he was, then the kid should have been shot at the location of this supposed beat down. Not all the way in the grass, no where near the T.
They have evidence that Zimmerman killed an unarmed kid who was pleading for help and mercy, who had simply been minding his own business prior to Zimmerman’s intrusion in his world, who had not been a threat to him when he’d been killed . At least 3 witnesses claim they heard a boy screaming for help, and least one of these witnesses claim there was no fight taking place when the gun went off.
So they won’t be saying "“Well, he had a gun; do the math.” There is evidence that Zimmerman took an action that went above and beyond him merely losing his head in a fight.
If you don’t believe the “details” of his story, why put stock in the idea that Martin hit him first? Why not consider that unknowable and just look at what what the other evidence suggests?
The State has evidence that Zimmerman provoked reasonable fear in Martin by following him at least twice (by truck and then by foot) and failing to identify himself as belong to the Neighborhood Watch. His expressed prejudice against the kid (as evident in the NEN call) combined with evidence that Martin tried to run away from Zimmerman (provided by Deedee’s statement and Zimmerman’s NEN call) further lends credence to the idea that Zimmerman took hostile action against a kid who had gone out of his way to avoid confrontation with him.
Given this, what makes you think Martin hit Zimmerman simply because Zimmerman merely said something insulting to him?
I haven’t, but I assume that Corey, Gilbreath, and the other prosecutors know this stuff like the back of their hand and are not newbies to the concept of proving what a depraved mind looks like, since they’ve probably done it numerous times. And since they’ve charged Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder, and the charges remain uncontested even after months of discovery, it makes it hard for me to say that they lack evidence for a depraved mind. You might not be convinced by this evidence, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there.
It doesn’t matter what rules I’m familiar with. It’s the lawyers who clearly disagree with your opinion and who actually have some skin in the game that you should be reserving your condenscension for.
I don’t know for sure whether Trayvon actually said those things. It could be true. Then again, it’s possible that Zimmerman embellished his account in various ways in order to bolster his story. But even if you were to remove the embellishments, he may still very well have a legitimate claim of self-defense.
I think that’s a bit of an exaggeration.
Why would the fact Martin had no wounds indicate that Zimmerman wasn’t being beaten up? Just because he wasn’t fighting back effectively doesn’t mean he wasn’t being attacked. I think there are plenty of examples of somebody being beaten up- even beaten to death- where the person doing the beating was not injured.
Of course, if Martin did have wounds, you would likely say that they show that Zimmerman attacked him, and that they are evidence that this was merely a fight that Martin won.
The beating moved from the top of the T southward down the “T”. Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman when he shot him so it’s consistent with him shooting him during the beating. Just because he didn’t shoot him right away doesn’t mean he didn’t become in fear of great bodily harm/death.
Yeah right…
The three witnesses that heard a “boy” screaming for help are pointless, because the screams have been recorded. We heard the same thing they did. The witless you refer to at the end, Mary Cutcher, is absolutely worthless. She saw nothing. She is an extremely stupid person (just like her mother).
Except it doesn’t seem that he did go out of his way to avoid a confrontation with him. And what Zimmerman did is not something novel. An adult suspects a kid of being up to no good so he keeps an eye on him. I’ve had it done to me many times. I never attacked anyone.
He knew Zimmerman was “up in his business” and he went to confront him out of anger (and for some girl’s benefit.)
If they have it, they haven’t released it yet.
His keychain with flashlight attached was found near the top of the “T”.
If GZ would be so kind as to point out what is true and what is a lie in his story it would make the process of “removing the embellishments” much simpler.
My understanding is that GZ will have to depend on the imagination of the juror as to what is and is not an “embellishment” in his story.
If I were a juror I would be disinclined to believe anything he said which was not independently verifiable because he has fabricated and omitted things in his story. Given his obvious motivation to lie should he think he needs to, coupled with his “embellishments” I wouldn’t be surprised if one or more jurors decided to throw all of GZ testimony out the window.
If GZ were to lay out clearly where he lied and where he did not, it might help a juror know which parts should be believed.
Quite the opposite. That he had already received serious bodily harm, in the form of a broken nose, and that the attack was ongoing, makes any fear he had of receiving serious bodily harm entirely reasonable.
Again, no. There’s no reason to expect him to use lesser force that shooting him.
If anyone heard a “boy” screaming, it was nothing to do with this incident. No-one has conclusively identified which one of them was screaming, but circumstantial evidence points to it being Zimmerman - you know, the one that we have proof that was being beaten, not the one that we have proof was doing the beating.
Zimmerman had every right to “intrude into his world” by following him and asking him what he was doing.
What do you mean by “losing his head”? He may well have acted calmly and rationally, and decided shooting Martin was the best option - as he was entitled to do. I don’t see any evidence he lost his head. It would be in character for him to do so, but that’s neither provable nor relevant.
That fear would not be reasonable. We’ve been over this many times, and you are demonstrably wrong. That someone is following you, or talking to you, is not reason in and of itself to fear violence of any kind.
He expresses no prejudice in any of the calls, and DeeDee’s statement is that Martin would not run away.
The evidence we have shows no reason at all for Martin to hit Zimmerman. To assume that gives some benefit of the doubt to Martin, although nowhere near enough to show Zimmerman guilty of anything.
There’s nothing in the discovery evidence to show depraved mind. They are charging him because it would be politically unacceptable to do otherwise, and when he gets off they can blame the SYG law. Even though this is unlikely to be an SYG case, but a basic self defence one.
I know you weren’t talking to me, but I’m happy to condescend someone who is constantly wrong about both the facts of the case and their legal relevance.
I don’t believe that kids scuffing at a playground routinely get broken noses. Since, under Florida law, a broken nose can qualify as “serious bodily injury” and since Zimmerman can show he had a broken nose, I don’t believe the state will be able to carry this burden – they have to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was NOT in fear of serious bodily injury, and Zimmerman will present uncontroverted testimony that he actually received serious bodily injury. Even if the jury is doubtful, that’s not enough.
Sure. This is why i believe they have some additional evidence, evidence that is not public.
You’re trying to cast me in disagreement with the lawyers handing the states case – but you asked me to render an opinion on the public evidence. The lawyers handling the state’s case have the advantage; they have seen all the evidence.
For example, if there’s a text message from Zimmerman saying he knew all along he could blow that kid away, and he wasn’t afraid for a second… you see how that would be a game changer, right?
Why would such evidence not have been released, if it exists?
There is certainly evidence that hasn’t been made public, but what evidence are you talking about that O’Mara hasn’t seen? He has already said that there isn’t isn’t enough evidence to get an indictment from a grand jury. I would think he would avoid making a statement like that in his motion if evidence like that was in discovery. Especially when you are talking about evidence, that he doesn’t have to wait until discovery to examine, like his client’s cell phone records.
So, in other words, it’s OK that Zimmerman is flat-out lying as long as you call it embellishment?