I meant if the prosecution proves (1) false…
If Zimmerman was seriously injured, they will have to prove that Martin actively withdrew from the fight to prove that he was no longer a threat. Are you seriously suggesting that anyone will believe that the person who’s inflicted those injuries, and who is, literally, on top in the fight, is no threat to the person beneath?
Let’s go through this. Martin attacked and injured Zimmerman for reasons we don’t know. They were seen fighting, with one person on top of the other, and the stains on their clothing show Zimmerman was beneath and Martin on top. Someone was screaming, based on the expert testimony it was not Martin and may have been Zimmerman.
That’s the evidence. Explain to me how it proves Zimmerman was not in fear of death or serious injury, or provide evidence that shows all those statements are false.
Remember, if there is any reasonable scenario, no matter how unlikely, where Zimmerman was the victim, he is not guilty. I have laid out such a scenario, it is plausible and fits the evidence. You must now disprove it, or admit he’s not guilty.
Or, ignore me, or blather incoherently. It’s up to you.
That’s a huge “if.” What evidence has been put forth that this is a plausible scenario?
Yes, I suppose that’s true. But that’s an uphill battle.
For example, let’s assume that Martin attacked Zimmerman and inflicted serious bodily harm on him, and then passed out. Zimmerman lies on the ground for twenty minutes next to the unconscious Martin. Your point is at the end of that twenty minutes, clearly Zimmerman could not pull his gun and shoot Martin and then claim self-defense, pointing to his injuries as proof of his fear.
So – if 20 minutes defeats the claim of self-defense, doesn’t 19 minutes? Yes, of course.
How about 18 minutes? And so on. I get (I think) the reasoning.
But I don’t think there’s a bright line here, and I don’t think that the timeline allows for enough time to say, definitively, that Martin was no longer a threat because Zimmerman had him in a wrist lock.
However, I suppose it’s true to say that if the prosecution could prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman’s fear of imminent serious bodily harm was not reasonable because Martin was in some way neutralized, then Zimmerman’s injuries are no longer relevant.
But when the facts in front of the jury are a broken nose, grass stains on the knees of Martin, and a wrist lock, I don’t believe that will convince the jury that Martin’s threat was abated.
Yes. And no.
Yes, imminent threat does not require someone to already be injured. But no, that doesn’t make the injuries a red herring. It makes the injuries good supporting evidence to show how credible the threat was. With no injuries, the court would be left with only Zimmerman’s word that a threat existed. With the injuries, Zimmerman’s claim is buttressed by physical evidence.
Okay, you with the face, you win. There’s just no talking to you so I quit.
As inconvenient as it might be for you to do your own homework, I encourage you to do so rather than blindly defer to Bricker, who is routinely wrong and misleading. A simple google search would’ve told you this is wrong.
The defense can file a motion to dismiss the charges well before charges have even been filed, let alone before trial. Which should be intuitive; it would be giving the state too much power if defendants didn’t have this out. Since O’Mara would be acting unethically and incompetently if the state’s evidence was insufficient and he did not request the case to be dropped, we can assume he has conceded that there are grounds to charge his client with 2nd degree murder.
I’m tired of post-parsing with you, so I’m gonna leave it at this.
An expert who claims it was who Martin who was screaming “stop” and “help” before he was killed.
Ear witnesses who said it was a boy who was crying despondently before the gun was killed.
Zimmerman who excluded himself as the voice who was screaming.
I keep posting this same shit over and over again.
We aren’t talking about what is and is not an uphill battle. What the state is legally obligated to do to win their case is what we’re talking about. You challenged me when I said the prosecution doesn’t have to address Zimmerman’s injuries, and you shouldn’t have.
This is not what Zimmerman claimed is what happened so it’s 100% irrelevant.
And yet the State can still disprove self defense without addressing his injuries. The State probably will address them, because their lack of severity help support the idea that Zimmerman unlawfully killed Martin. But they don’t have to.
Cite? The links to experts in this thread have been to those who say it’s undetermined, or those who say it’s more likely Zimmerman.
As there was no “boy” involved in this incident, they cannot have heard either Martin or Zimmerman. Unless they saw who was screaming, they have no way to know who it was.
The witnesses may have claimed that, but they are provably either mistaken or lying.
Cite? As in, link to the quote where Zimmerman says he was not screaming when Martin was attacking him. Not a quote where he doesn’t recognise who’s screaming, or a link to the reenactment where he doesn’t scream. They are meaningless in this context.
Well, quite. You should stop posting shit, and instead post stuff that has legal relevance, is based on the actual evidence, and shows some level of critical thought, not bias and unsupported speculation.
No, they can’t.
What “lack of severity”? They are severe enough to count for the purpose of allowing lethal force, as Bricker’s cites show. You seem to think that he had to be at death’s door to be entitled to kill him. That’s utterly untrue.
Why do you continue posting these things that you have been told, with cites and with reasoning, are utterly false? It cannot be that you don’t know you’re wrong, as you’ve read this thread, and the news and other cites you and others have posted.
Now, it may be possible that the prosecution can prove him guilty. But they cannot do so by the methods you’ve suggested.
We know he had a broken nose, and we know a broken nose counts as a serious injury in Florida law. So, you either have to prove that these injuries did not come from Martin, or that something happened between Martin injuring him and Zimmerman shooting whereby Martin retreated from the fight, and made it clear to Zimmerman he was no longer a threat.
You have, as yet, provided nothing to even suggest either of those things are true, let alone prove them.
Like the homework you did on character evidence, where you quoted Wikipedia instead of looking at the Florida statute, and were wrong? I’ll have to follow your sterling example.
I don’t know what point you think you are making here. Probable cause is a lower burden of proof than what the prosecution faces now. If you’re attacking a strawman of “there’s no evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman could possibly be guilty”, well, you did a fine job of that. Zimmerman admits shooting Martin, there’s probable cause right there.
It’s funny that every single time I correct you on a factual matter and you decide that you’ve lost the point, you simply ignore it and move on to something else. I don’t recall a single time you’ve conceded factual error.
Here’s what I said about dismissals, and the scenario I was responding to:
(emphasis added)
The Florida lawyer’s site you link to (but fail to quote) describes a criminal motion to dismiss as follows:
It’s true that Human Action’s summary of my statement was incomplete, because I drew a distinction between pre-trial (in limine) and trial motions which he failed to pass on. But your penchant for finding a link that seems like it might support your position, linking to it, and hoping desperately that no one actually reads the text at the link, remains strong.
The defense can only move for dismissal on the grounds that the prosecution’s evidence fails to rise to the requisite level of “beyond a reasonable doubt” after the trial has commenced and the prosecution has presented its evidence.
The defense can move quash the indictment, or otherwise dismiss the charges before the trial begins, on evidentiary grounds only if they claim the evidence does not reach the level of probable cause. There are other, non-evidence-related reasons that the defense could rest a motion to dismiss on ahead of trial, but not ones that claim the evidence is legally insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict.
That’s my mistake. In my defense, I didn’t, and don’t, know why ywtf thinks it’s relevant that probable cause exists, when mere probable cause won’t secure a conviction. I don’t know if “uncontested charge” is an actual legal term, but it put me in mind of pleading guilty or not, not motions to dismiss. What could pleading not guilty be if not contesting the charge?
“Contesting a charge” means exactly what it suggests. That someone is claiming that the charges are without merit and shouldn’t have been made in the first place. This is 5th grade English. Every time you dogmatically state there’s no evidence that Zimmerman murdered Martin, I will keep reminding you that his own lawyers seem to think otherwise. Because if there was no evidence, O’Mara should have filed a motion for dismissal a year ago. Earlier you wrote:
That’s the only reason I pointed out what the State of Florida laughingly thinks about this claim. If the only reasonable inference is self-defense, O’Mara is incompetent.
So, even though it’s just been explained to you that they can still contest the charge after the prosecution has made it’s case, you are claiming that O’Mara’s incompetent for not contesting it? Do you actually read the posts in this thread?
Look, the simple fact is that, from the evidence in the public domain, no reasonable person could consider Zimmerman guilty. That doesn’t mean there isn’t probable cause to try him, and it doesn’t mean there isn’t other evidence.
But hey, you stick to your belief that anyone the state charges is automatically guilty regardless of evidence.
Oh, and this - er, no. If the only reasonable conclusion is self defence, then it’s the State that are not merely incompetent, but criminally unethical. I’ve no idea how you think you can spin potential prosecutorial misconduct into evidence of defence incompetence.
Well, it’s contesting the charge, in a sense. A plea of not guilty encompasses a wide range of stances. You may argue at trial that you’re factually innocent and present evidence to that end, or you can rest your case without presenting a single witness and argue to the jury that the state’s evidence is not sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. You can admit the truth of the state’s facts but put forth an affirmative defense that negates or mitigates criminal responsibility.
But you’re right: the state needs probable cause to bring you to trial. To gain a dismissal before trial, on the grounds on lack of sufficient evidence, you have to argue that the evidence fails to reach the probable cause standard.
Fair point. It’s not correct to say there is “no” evidence.
Unfair point. Self-defense must be raised at trial. O’Mara cannot say to the court, pre-trial, that his client is not guilty because he was defending himself and therefore the trial shouldn’t happen.
Is this a legal term, or your own turn of phrase? Because my dictionary has “contest” as “to argue against; dispute” or “to call in question”. I don’t know where you’re getting “shouldn’t have been made in the first place”. A not guilty plea is “contesting” a charge. Again, unless this is a particular legal term I am unaware of.
Have I said there was no evidence? I don’t recall doing so. If I did, that was in error. There is evidence for murder, it just falls well below the burden of proof required.
Come again? I wrote that the only reasonable inference of those three pieces of evidence is that Martin inflicted Zimmerman’s injuries. How it speaks to the self-defense claim is a broader issue, the mere fact that Martin inflicted the injuries doesn’t, on its own, prove self-defense.
In the right circumstances, that Martin inflicted the injuries could work against Zimmerman - if, for example, it could be shown that, after inflicting them Martin fled, then Zimmerman found him and killed him in revenge.
Of course, the other evidence shows that this is not what happened, but in any case, the prosecution will either have to show Martin did not cause the injuries, or deal with the consequences of him having done so. They can’t simply ignore them and still make a case.