Hope you don’t mind me chiming in too? I’ll promise to leave the technical stuff to Bricker and jiha.
Unless someone wants to claim that DD is lying, her interview clearly suggests that Z didn’t first spot Trayvon conveniently by Frank Taafe’s house, looking shifty and covetous.
If TM was already sheltering near the mailboxes and hadn’t yet mentioned seeing Z, that means that the beginning of Z’s story at least is a total fabrication.
Surely, if the cctv coverage of the clubhouse is suitable for purpose, they can determine conclusively whether or not Z parked his truck where he said he did, at the time he said he did?
But, rather than consider this, I’m sure some will prefer to address DD’s speech quirks and why “by his house” has to mean right outside his dad’s address.
Nope, not true. Firstly, you are talking about applying the law to a specific incident, so probabilities don’t cut it. Secondly, even if Martin was standing his ground, it doesn’t follow that Zimmerman wasn’t.
Perhaps you should research it before making pronouncemnts on it’s applicability.
Actually, all Zimmerman has to do is claim self defence to be able to rely on it in court. He has to offer no evidence whatsoever of it’s likelihood, or anything else, and the state have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he wasn’t acting in self defence. Probability, again, will not cut it.
This is a somewhat unusual feature of Florida law, where self defence is not an affirmative defence. Again, do your research.
They can say what they like, it’s not their determination.
Do you understand the difference, though? In an SYG case, Zimmerman has to prove (to a lower standard than beyond reasonable doubt) that he was, in fact, standing his ground. In a simple self defence case, he has to prove nothing.
Do you actually understand that Martin is not charged with a crime, and cannot claim self defence? Do you, further, understand that whether or nor Martin was defending himself is irrelevant to the question of whether Zimmerman was defending himself? If not, I suggest that, along with the SYG law, you research these issues, rather than continuing to post statements and opinions that are irrelevant and/or demonstrably false.
What you feel is entirely fucking irrelevant. What actually happened, to the extent we can prove it with the evidence on offer, is what actually matters.
As Hbns accurately observed, I’m judging this case by a fairly strict legal standard. The reason being, if you are going to claim someone is a murderer and should be punished as such, you damn well need to rely on something more than your feelings. You need to rely on the actual facts in evidence. You are constantly refusing to do this, repeatedly making baseless assumptions and, when challenged on them, either changing the subject or outright lying about the evidence. The most recent outright lie was that DeeDee claimed she heard Martin screaming “let me go”.
Steophan, IF it was proven that Z never made his nen call from the clubhouse, how would it affect your opinion regarding the rest of his testimony?
Would you still be as sure in your belief that his injuries could only have resulted as a result of the events described and that there was no intention by Z to present what happened in the most favourable light to himself?
You’re still missing the point. Zimmerman probably is presenting what happened in the most favourable light to himself. Even if it’s proven he lied about certain things, it still needs to be proved he was not acting in self defence. Absent such proof, I will continue to consider him not guilty.
Proving one part of his testimony false does not prove another part false. It may make him so unreliable that you can discount his testimony, but you still need actual evidence to prove it false.
I don’t consider that there’s any doubt that Martin inflicted the injuries on Zimmerman, or that, at the time he was shot, Martin was on top of him. I consider that these two facts provide for reasonable doubt that Zimmerman could not have been in reasonable fear of death or serious injury.
Therefore, not guilty of murder. Whether I believe him is irrelevant.
This irrelevance, for what it’s worth, actually makes me more inclined to believe him, as he has no reason to lie.
We know when Z ended his nen call. We know when the first witness rang 911 to report an incident.
By Z’s own admission in his reenactment, if TM had attacked him when he said he did, it’d have meant “the fight” was going on for at least a minute before the first person dialled 911.
Either Z’s timing is so out nothing he says should be treated as reliable, or he’s lying again.
So, ignore what he says and focus on the witness and physical evidence. Then weep when it gets thrown out of court, as it’s nowhere near sufficient to convict him.
But then, why is it so hard to believe that the fight when on for a whole minute before someone called the police? That sounds about right to me. That’s time for someone to hear something, look out the window or go outside, think about what to do, find their phone, and dial.
No, it went on for a whole minute without anyone hearing a thing, and that is NOT what Z described. He went to the ground almost instantly and was screaming for help from that point on, according to his testimony.
By Z’s own reckoning, the fight should have been over before the first person heard a gunshot.
He isn’t expected to know, and the part where he tells us exactly where he was when he ended his call with the dispatcher, and we have a reasonable estimation for how much time could have transpired from that point to the moment he was attacked and the moment only seconds later when he’d have started screaming for help.
If Z was telling the truth about his actions after telling the dispatcher he was heading back to his truck, he’d have had to be walking in slow motion back to where he said he was when T either came from out of the bushes or from out of nowhere, for the timeline of events to match up.
Why do you keep assuming that the police would have been called the very instant he started screaming, and not a minute or two later? And, more importantly, do you understand how fallible people’s recall is, especially of stressful situations? We should not be looking to Zimmerman’s - or anyone’s - testimony for a second by second breakdown of actions, we should look for a broad guide to what happened, to help interpret the other evidence.
As the entirety of Zimmerman’s testimony is broadly supported by the other evidence, it is reasonable to assume that it is a good representation of what actually happened.
Again, this is something that has been repeatedly pointed out to you. Zimmerman’s testimony is valid exactly as far as it is corroborated by the evidence. As there is plenty that supports it, and only some borderline incoherent hearsay evidence that contradicts it, it’s safe to say it’s fundamentally accurate.
Look, if we know the time of the gunshot and we know when Z ended his dispatch call, if there is any credibility at all to Z’s recall of the fight we should be able to make a reasonable estimate of how long it occurred, and by working backwards, we can establish how much time remains unexplained.
If Z took 30 seconds to walk to the point TM approached him after ending his call at 7:13:38, that would mean the fight had been going on for over 2 minutes when the first 911 call was made, and I’d like to hear your explanation for how the fight went on for that long.
Z starts stumbling down the walkway, veering from side to side for 40ft.
Let’s say that took what? 20 secs max?
Z falls to the floor, arms conveniently by his side so that Trayvon can mount him with no delay and immediately hold him helpless.
PUNCH, PUNCH, PUNCH, PUNCH… let’s say another 10 secs.
Z tries to sit up, TM grabs his head, throat, jacket…who knows what, and starts to slam Z’s head against the pavement. Let’s say Z is still as unresisting and call it a couple of secs for each slam. Let’s give Z 5 slams and call it another 10 secs.
Z squirms away onto the grass, his jacket rides up, he thinks TM sees his weapon, then knows he’s seen his weapon because he’s trying to grab it. Z immediately traps his hand, pulls out his gun with no mention of any difficulty and fires it. One time. Let’s say this period took 30 secs.
That gives us 70 secs from gunshot back to sucker-punch. Does that make his story ring true?
I strongly disagree. The language here quotes Florida cases for the proposition that second-degree murder generally involves a defendant who knows the victim or bears enmity towards the victim. For the proposition that malice murder convictions have been affirmed based on less direct evidence of malice, the only support relied upon is caselaw from South Carolina and New York, respectively.
Again, I completely disagree. And you cannot point to a single case, in Florida, in which second degree murder has been sustained on evidence as indeterminate of hatred as the language Zimmerman used here. I can point to plenty of cases in which second degree has been reversed on appeal because of a failure to prove the hatred/ill-will element.
Duckett v. State, 686 So. 2d 662 (Fl. DCA 1996), DUI accused ran off the road and killed a tow truck driver and passengers from a disabled bus, after first getting out of his car when he caused a previous accident, then getting in and continuing to drive. No second degree.
In Manuel v. State, 344 So. 2d 1317 (Fl DCA 1977), William Manuel armed himself with a gun to go after the person that he said was “messing with” his wife, and shot in the direction of the house involved. No second-degree.
See also Ramsey v. State, 114 Fla. 766, 154 So. 855, 856 (1934); Huntley v. State, 66 So.2d 504, 507 (Fla. 1953); Turner v. State, 298 So.2d 559, 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Bega v. State, 100 So.2d 455, 457 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958).
I think you are confused on this point:
What does that describe?
It’s the language from the unfortunately-named Savage v. State, but it describes the mens rea for culpable negligence, in support of manslaughter.
Florida standard jury instruction for manslaughter.
In order to reach second-degree murder, Florida needs a much higher bar. As a matter of law, “fucking punks” who “always get away,” cannot alone sustain that bar.
You mentioned you were a lawyer – what’s your criminal law background, if I can ask?
