If Z is making an affirmative defence, he shouldn’t even have a defence team yet, should he? Are you saying that Z has to at least have some backing to the story he gives before he gets a walk-out?
For example, say there’d been no nen call and the neighbours had called the police. If he’d said he first came across Trayvon while operating his jetpack and after landing and stashing his gear, it all went pear-shaped, would he not be expected to provide proof he had a jetpack before the rest of his evidence was given credibility?
Overcharging is something that happens with fair frequency, I agree. But it’s not really ethical. The defense attorney has a single function: to zealously defend his client within the bounds of ethical representation. The prosecutor, in contrast, has a dual role: he or she must zealously represent the government, but also be mindful of the interests of justice. This means, among other things, not charging a count that is unproveable or for which you lack a good-faith belief, just to create “bargaining room.”
In the situation you described, they would have to ignore Zimmerman’s testimony, as it’s been proven false, and accept that he cannot be proven to have not been in fear at the moment he shot Martin, and so acquit. Is that what you meant? Because that’s how, in that particular situation, it should happen.
No. The jury has to rely on the record that’s presented.
If a particular case has elements of the crime that can’t be proven due to the circumstances of that case, then the jury’s verdict must conform to the evidence that was presented, and cannot include facts that were not part of the trial record.
Field, obviously. Unless that is done properly, how can any other decision be made? It’s easier to drop charges than it is to catch a murderer once you’ve released them.
As an aside, how impressed are you with the way this incident was handled by the EMT and police on scene?
Er, no. Just, no. It is not the prosecution’s business to be concerned with Martin’s character, or anyone’s opinion of it, except insofar as it relates to proving Zimmerman’s guilt. They are not there to defend Martin, or advocate for him, or anything like that.
Again, you reveal your ignorance of the justice system.
OK. But none of what I wrote is really applicable to the field. In the field, there’s no requirement for “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In the field, the proper inquiry is “probable cause.”
The police response does not seem to have been award-winning.
If evidence came to light that Trayvon Martin had been kicking ass on the underground mma circuit since he was 10 and was well known for challenging bigger dudes to fights to prove a point, that would have to be ignored, as would evidence that Z had single-handedly thrown 10 rowdy party-goers out of a club, throwing ko’s left, right and center?
hmm…could Zimmerman’s actions AFTER the shot be interpreted in that light?
Again, I hear you, but many people have a fear of serious bodily injury–rapists, robbers, and a whole bunch of people. Florida law can’t possibly mean that these people can turn around and kill their victims if they fought back and DID PUT THEM IN FEAR OF SERIOUS BODILY INJURY (and claim self-defense).
But Zimmerman did say he wasn’t afraid of Martin, didn’t he? Or is is just the moment before the shot?
You keep saying this crap and people keep telling you that Florida law specifically excludes claims of self-defense of people who are committing a felony. And you ignore this and keep plowing on with this fallacy.
Does anyone who’s following this case know the witness # of the person who turned up on the scene first with the flashlight and who went on to take the photo’s of the back of his head?
What felony was Zimmerman in process of committing?
And if you cannot answer that question, then can you cite the specific language of the law that in your opinion “excludes Zimmerman from taking advantage of self-defense”?
No. The death must have been the result of conduct motivated by spite, ill-will, or hatred. Conduct after the death cannot be relied upon for this element, except to the extent that it shows something about the conduct prior to the death.
§ 776.012: “However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if . . . He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself…”
So what you’re asking does seem absurd: can a rapist attack you, get you to fight back, and then justifiably use deadly force against you because he feared for his life?
No. The rapist is still, however, criminally liable for the initial attack against you. He may only claim self-defense for the use of deadly force that was motivated by his fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury, and not if he was committing a forcible felony. And this defense is not available to someone who is committing a forcible felony. §776.041: “The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who: Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony…”
That’s a key piece of evidence. If Zimmerman said he wasn’t afraid of Martin, the prosecution can use that to negate self-defense.