[QUOTE=you with the face]
The issue of importance is whether you can attack someone the way Zimmerman claimed Martin attack him without getting their DNA under your fingernails. Even if the defense had a million dollars in the bank, I doubt they could find an expert willing to say this is even remotely likely.
[/QUOTE]
Again and again, the defense does not have to prove that it is possible. The prosecution needs to prove that it is impossible.
If you wish to argue that this proves Zimmerman is guilty, you will need to show the evidence that it is impossible to get into a fight such as has been described by Zimmerman and other witnesses without getting DNA under the fingernails of the right hand (not the hand used to punch someone in the nose). So, please produce the evidence that shows that this is impossible.
Simply waving your hands and insisting is not evidence.
Posted in no hope that it will sink in this time either.
I’ll just ask: you with the face, why is the issue of importance “whether you can attack someone the way Zimmerman claimed Martin attack[ed] him without getting their DNA under your fingernails”? Why is matching Zimmerman’s recounting the important part?
Because if there’s little evidence that supports the defendant’s version of events, the jury has no reason to think the defendant’s version of events could have happened. That increases the probability that the prosecution’s theory is true.
What is so difficult to understand about this? The thought process is no different than with any other murder case. If a defendant asserts that he didn’t commit the crime but some other person did, but the evidence doesn’t support that because 1) no other person had access to the victim, 2) no other person’s fingerprints were found on the murder weapon and 3) no other person had a motive to kill the victim, does this automatically mean the prosecution wins? No. But if the prosecution proves that 1) the defendant had access to the victim, 2) the defendant’s fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, and 3) the defendant had a motive to kill the victim, they will have a good damn chance of winning their case.
As much as it must hurt to acknowledge this, it definitely matters whether the defendant’s claim of self defense is reasonable given the evidence.
I know you asked You With The Face, but I was hoping you don’t mind if I answered with what I think they need to get a conviction of second degree murder.
They must prove that a human being was killed. (Autopsy Report)
They must prove that the killing was unlawful.
They must prove that the killing was committed by Zimmerman. (Confession)
Zimmerman’s actions were dangerous to another human being. (Confession)
Zimmerman acted in a way that showed a depraved indifference to human life (pulling the trigger of a gun at point blank range seems pretty indifferent to me).
The killing was not premeditated. (Confession. Be silly to confess to premeditation just to beat second degree murder charge).
So the only thing I see that hasn’t been proven already is that the killing was unlawful. Which brings us to the self-defense claim. Which now shifts the responsibility to the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn’t self defense.
Absolutely. If it’s reasonable, they must find him not guilty. Reasonable does not mean probable - indeed, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the likelihood of it happening.
What it means is that, looking at the evidence, could a reasonable person believe that it’s possible he acted in self defence. If so, he is not guilty.
To show he’s guilty, the prosecution will have to show that no reasonable person could think it’s possible he’s not guilty.
The claim is obviously reasonable on the face of it. There was a fight and he was injured. It is clearly possible he was acting in self defence - unless the prosecution have some evidence that it isn’t.
This one may be tricky - the word depraved is important. He may be able to argue that, although he was indifferent to Martin’s survival at that point, it was not due to depravation but the risk to his own life or health. This would be the case even if there wasn’t a specific provision for self defence.
This much is true. But disproving a version of events isn’t the barrier the prosecution faces, they must disprove self-defense. Which you know, it was neatly summarized in a way that you seemed to accept:
That’s what the state must do.
That’s not really analogous, because the evidence doesn’t discredit Martin attacking Zimmerman. Your belief that it does is based on matching the evidence to Zimmerman’s story, as opposed to reading it objectively. This is misguided.
Zimmerman, guilty or not, was in a situation proven to disrupt memory (stress + physical struggle). Even if he weren’t, his story is just his story. Discrediting the details of it is pointless, unless the state can prove its case. The fingernail scrapings’ implications for the exact placement of Martin’s hands, the amount of blood on Zimmerman’s face when he was struck, this sort of thing - they don’t serve to disprove an attack.
And in this case, it is. Self-defense is the only reasonable conclusion, given the evidence. But that’s not what you’re talking about here, you’ve expanded “claim of self defense” into “everything the defendent has said”.
No aspect of this case or discussion hurts me, because I have no particular stake in it, except the general wish to see justice done. Maybe try dialing back the snark from time to time.
The purpose of my question was to get you with the face to do the analysis you have undertaken, and thus (hopefully) cement the understanding about “beyond a reasonable doubt” for each and every element that she seems to acknowledge every now and then but completely dismiss when it comes to a specific example.
What I now fear will happen if she’ll just adopt what you’ve said without gaining any additional understanding, and the Great Circle Jerk will continue.
However, since the bell cannot be unrung:
Not terrible. You missed venue – they have to prove the killing took place in Florida, in Seminole County, which is trivially easy.
You have two (4)'s. Your second four is incorrect. “Depraved indifference” is not simply a substitute for dangerous conduct. To prove this element, the state must show hatred, malice, or ill-will. It would not be enough to simply prove that he shot someone at point-blank range.
Correct. So what must the state disprove, beyond a reasonable doubt, to eliminate the self-defense claim?
That was supposed to be a 4a and 4b because I think it was two points made in one clause. I’ll leave that last question for You With The Face instead of stepping on your toes again.
I apologize for the curt rejoinder. It’s just that I started feeling like Joe Pesci in “My Cousin Vinny:”
Vinny: How many fingers am I holding up?
Judge: Let the record reflect that the counselor is holding up two fingers.
Vinny: Hey, your honor please, huh?
Judge: Oh…sorry.
Vinny Gambini: Now. Mrs. Riley, and only Mrs. Riley…
Yes, and what was my response to that? I said if the State demonstrates that Zimmerman was not threatened with imminent harm because his victim was screaming for help (witness testimony), was in a wrist lock (Zimmerman’s confession), and had no acess to a weapon (because if the gun was in Zimmerman’s holster as claimed, the kid could not have seen it), then that proves that Zimmerman did not kill in self-defense.
What you seem reluctant to accept is that Zimmerman’s claims *are *material to disproving self-defense. Why? Because it is Zimmerman who claimed Martin verbally threatened him with death (which is incompatible with screams for help), and it is Zimmerman who claimed he had Martin in a wrist lock (which, if true, shows Zimmerman had no reasonable reason to fear the kid because he’d immobilized him already), and it is Zimmerman who claimed he was wearing his gun on his rear hip (which, if true, tells us that Martin couldn’t had seen, let alone, used the weapon against him).
The irony is that same evidence used by the defense to assert self-defense (Zimmerman’s statement) can also be used to disprove self-defense.
That was known before this. I think it was more interesting that the Prosecutor didn’t want the case in the first place:
"In addition, the man’s attorney, Wesley White, a former employee who admitted that he might run against her in 2016, told the judge that he once was “castigated for my hand in bringing that [Trayvon Martin] case to her office.”
We know that it can’t be determined who was screaming, so you’re wrong again. We know Zimmerman was threatened because Martin had already inflicted said harm, and was still fighting.
Zimmerman had not immobilised Martin, it was the other way round.
And, again, even if everything you say is correct, it doesn’t disprove self defence. Do you even understand what the word “prove” means?
Witnesses didn’t state that Martin was screaming, they are either unsure or heard “a boy”. There was no boy in the fight, nor can a 17-year-old and a 28-year-old be readily distinguished through screams.
That doesn’t negate imminent harm. Handcuffs might, but not a particular grapple that could be slipped in an instant.
Been over this before, but nothing prevents a pistol worn at the right hip from being visible when the person wearing it is struggling under an attacker. Do you assert that Zimmerman was perfectly flat on his back and motionless?
More importantly, Martin’s lack of access to a weapon doesn’t negate imminent harm either.
Disproving Zimmerman’s claims is not interchangeable with disproving self-defense. There is overlap, sure, but only in the essential claim that Zimmerman was in reasonable fear of losing his life or suffering serious bodily harm from Martin when he fired the shot.
So, for instance, the gun on the hip. Say that Zimmerman breaks down on the stand and admits that he’s not sure if Martin saw and went for his gun or not, his memory is a blur and he thinks he filled in details that seemed right, but he can’t be sure. Even in this instance, his essential claim is unaffected: his wounds and the witness statements still establish that he was in reasonable fear of loss of life or serious bodily harm, and the state must prove that he wasn’t.
Same thing with Martin’s threat. Whether they were made or not doesn’t matter all that much. If you could prove that Martin were screaming for help, that would, but given how the experts are so torn on both whether this is possible and what the conclusion is, that can’t be done.
The wrist lock thing is just silly. A momentary fighting move can’t be said to remove the threat, particularly when it leaves an attacker atop the person applying the move. A blow that rendered the attacker unconscious, perhaps. A wrist lock, supposedly applied with one arm, pressing Martin’s arm against Zimmerman’s torso? No.
Bit of breaking news. ABC News retained an independent analyst to examine the screams and compare them to samples of Martin and Zimmerman.
There is no way the screamer can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, even if Owen and Reich get to testify. The only thing most of the experts can agree on is that they can’t be sure.
Thus far, no definitive evidence has been made public that confirms it was Martin screaming for help.
Your contention is that Martin was subdued in a wrist lock at the moment Zimmerman fired his weapon and that he confessed to this fact?
If so, please cite. Nothing I can find supports this claim.
Access to a weapon is not the issue, you can feel your life is in danger without being threatened with a firearm. Have you ever had someone mounted on top of you throwing punches to your face? Guaranteed you will fear for your life.
See, it’s these subtle errors that get you in nearly as much trouble as your overtly large, glaring errors.
It helps the state to show that Zimmerman was not threatened with imminent harm, yes. but what the state must actually PROVE is that Zimmerman did not have a reasonable fear of serious bodily harm.
You see the difference?
No. Even if the jury accepts that Martin was the one screaming – and there is differing testimony on that – it could still be true that martin threatened him with death first and then screamed for help.
No. Zimmerman was not Clark Kent. He could have been afraid that Martin would break the wrist lock.
No. Martin could have seen the gun, or known about it because Zimmerman said, “I have a gun.”
They have to PROVE, beyond a reasonable doubt, that those things didn’t happen.
They can’t just say, “They probably didn’t happen,” or “It’s unlikely.”
They have to show that they for suresies didn’t happen.
If I read it correctly the prosecution’s witness said Zimmerman’s voice didn’t match. There is no mention that they used Martin’s voice and the defense is claiming that this video was withheld from them. They had to find it on their own.
While I expect a defense attorney to defend his/her client the state has a duty to prosecute in an unbiased manner regarding evidence. If there was an attempt by the state to withhold this video (while using expert testimony involving Zimmerman’s voice independent of the 911 call) then legal and moral laws have been broken.