Zimmerman apparently believed Martin’s intent could be burglary, and that it was worth having a police officer come and investigate. Calling to report suspicious activity isn’t a trial or even an arrest, Zimmerman didn’t need probable cause, or to consider alternate explanations for Martin’s behavior. Any citizen can report anything the police anytime they want.
In the NEN call, Zimmerman reports that Martin has “his hand in his waistband”, and then that “he’s got something in his hands”. He didn’t identify a phone, a drink can, or a pack of Skittles.
I guess I’ll rephrase for the intentionally obtuse: on what possible basis besides being “suspicious” of black people in his neighborhood was Zimmerman suspicious of Martin in the first place? The question of Zimmerman being an overeager wannabe cop, a racist, or some combination of the two has obvious relevance to whether he reasonably evaluated the threat posted by Martin later and to the credibility of everything he says. The fact that “anyone is allowed to call the police” is not what’s relevant.
Doesn’t what you are saying here depend on assuming that Zimmerman’s account is believed by The Twelve to begin with? (It will be interesting to see how the defense proceeds in terms of portraying and conveying Zimmermans account of what happened that night… Will they put him on the stand? Or try to get there by other means?) It seems to me that the prosecution must “disprove” Zimmermans purported fear only if the jurors believe that he was actually afraid to begin with.
It isn’t as though a presumption of innocence demands that the jury presume that the accused is telling the truth. And in this specific case, there is no argument as to whether the accused actually caused the death of the victim. So this case is entirely about motive.
This thread has clearly demonstrated that “reasonable” in this case can go either way. The same will almost certainly be true of the 12 who sit in judgment. Obviously some people find Zimmerman’s explanation of what all the available non-Zimmerman-provided evidence means extremely believable and reasonable, and other people do not. Virtually all the evidence has entirely reasonable and entirely opposite interpretations.
I wonder at this point if anybody interested in this case could possibly step back, and pretend that Zimmerman has never said one thing to anyone about what happened that night. Not a single word. And look exclusively at the evidence to decide what the most reasonable explanation is. And by evidence, I mean everything… Every legally admissible shred of data and detail about these two people and the events of that night. And decide exclusively from that.
That might actually end up being the way the case is tried, obviously. Zimmerman might prove such a shaky witness that his defense team banks on their own spin and reasonable doubt. Although Florida law does require some kind of evidence from the defense to support the affirmative defense of self-defense; does anyone know ehat qualifies as such evidence?
By the way, Bricker: if the defense declines to put Zimmerman on the stand, under what circumstances and by whom would anything he has said so far be introduced, or could they? How does that work?
There you are. Obviously, none of us were there, so we can’t know exactly what Martin was doing, only what Zimmerman reported. Which was a person walking slowly, aimlessly, in the rain and looking at houses.
Not particularly, no. The threat posed by Martin later is allegedly a beating, not Martin’s race. It could be that Zimmerman would have endured the beating longer if Martin were white, but I doubt it, and it’s irrelevant to a self-defense claim.
Zimmerman’s credibility isn’t all that important either, frankly, since evidence doesn’t exist that proves him guilty. Even if you disbelieve every word he says, he still isn’t guilty.
I would like to take this moment to reiterate what I said previously: I don’t think Zimmerman is racist. I think he did some racial profiling, but I don’t think that qualifies him as a racist at all, and I think that harping on that idea is a bad strategy.
I absolutely believe, 100% and then some, that Zimmerman is a frustrated, irresponsible, foolish and dangerous wannabe. Which, for me personally, can be summed up quite nicely and accurately as “reckless”. (I argued that this was 2nd Degree long before the prosecution did, just go back to the first couple hundred posts…or is it a couple thousand? Sheesh… Has any other topical, specific, not – personal – to – any – SDMB-poster thread gone on this long before?)
Pardon:dubious: is it your belief/understanding/contention that people can kill one another, claim they were defending themselves and juries are required to believe them for the purposes of arriving at a verdict? Because as I just stated in my prior post, without Zimmerman’s explanation, (which is essentially the same condition as not believing a single word Zimmerman has said since he killed Martin) what does the evidence show? George Zimmerman caused the death of Trayvon Martin. So, if the jury does not believe anything Zimmerman has said, then they don’t believe it was self-defense. And if it was not self-defense, then George Zimmerman is absolutely guilty of unlawfully causing Trayvon Martin to be dead.
I don’t recall if we know whether the jury is going to have the option of lesser charges, but I sure hope so, because it could be a shame to think that the jury might have convicted him of something for Martin’s unjustified death, except for the prosecution’s overreach.
The problem is legal sufficiency. That means there has to be evidence in the record on which a reasonable jury could rely to establish each and every element of the offense. So, no: it’s not enough that the jury simply doesn’t believe he was afraid. The burden is on the state to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, so they must adduce some positive evidence to show that he wasn’t afraid. In this case, they can argue that his actions show he wasn’t afraid, I suppose, but the point is: they have to put those actions into evidence so the record reflects them.
Six, if I’m not mistaken, in Florida.
But your point is correct, and to me that suggests that reaching the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard will be an uphill climb.
We touched on this question some pages back. Basically, his statements to the police could be introduced by the prosecution, and even if they chose to supply only edited portions, a cross-exam of the witness that introduced those statements could get the whole statement in, under a res gestae requirement.
I apologize, but I am lost… This is not going to be a jury of 12? How is that possible?
Yes, I believe we are all perfectly clear on that point. However, the final determination of what is reasonable is up to the jury. And that jury may find that the interpretation favoring self-defense is not at all reasonable. That was my point: this thread has made it very clear that what one person finds perfectly reasonable another finds wholly unreasonable and vice versa.
Human Action covered this (again). Martin was walking in the rain, looking into houses. Just like the previous guy he spotted, who wound up being arrested.
How would it make a difference? If someone is sitting on your chest pounding your head against the ground, I don’t see how being a neighborhood watch guy affects your judgment of whether or not you are at risk.
[QUOTE=Stoid]
Pardon is it your belief/understanding/contention that people can kill one another, claim they were defending themselves and juries are required to believe them for the purposes of arriving at a verdict?
[/QUOTE]
A criminal defendant in the US is entitled to the presumption of innocence. The prosecution has to prove all the elements of their case beyond a reasonable doubt. If any reasonable doubt remains about any element of the prosecution’s case, then the defendant is not guilty as a matter of law.
Further, in Florida, under Stand Your Ground, the prosecution is required to disprove a claim of self-defense. You should read Bricker’s various posts to the thread for explanations.
Wrong. The evidence shows lacerations/broken nose on Zimmerman, eyewitnesses report seeing one man on top of the other, and the grass stains on clothes show that it was Zimmerman on the bottom and Martin on top. This is not just “what Zimmerman said”. Of course, you’re ignoring all this because it’s inconvenient to your premise.
It is not enough that the jury disbelieve Zimmerman. They also have to have prosecution prove to them, beyond reasonable doubt, that it was not self-defense on Zimmerman’s part. Prove with evidence, not with speculation. If there is no such proof, the jury cannot convict. In fact, if there is no such proof, the jury won’t even get to decide it. And as of right now, with the evidence that was released to public, the prosecution has nothing even approaching such proof.
The jury doesn’t have to believe a word Zimmerman has said…except where it’s backed up by other evidence. This isn’t extending any credibility or trust to Zimmerman, however, which is my point. You can conclude that he’s lying about everything not backed up by other evidence, and he’s still not guilty.
The evidence shows more than that Zimmerman fatally shot Martin. It shows injuries to Zimmerman’s face and the back of his head. It shows a scrape on Martin’s knuckle. It shows witnesses who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman. In light of these facts, how can the state disprove self defense?
I didn’t ignore anything at all… I’m fully aware of all of it, as well as all the other evidence, such as the screams in the background, the 911 call from Zimmerman, etc. I wasn’t arguing for either conclusion, and that was my point: reasonable people can reasonably come to reasonably different conclusions about what all of the evidence means in terms of deciding Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence.
In your entirely reasonable opinion. However, other entirely reasonable opinions differ, including the opinion of the prosecution itself. As for “speculation”, a certain amount of speculation is impossible to avoid in the process of judgment. That’s kind of why it’s called judgment; There are always missing parts that need to be interpreted and filled in and speculated about based on what evidence actually exists.
Bolding mine. You should’ve stopped there. As for “Snitches get stitches” that your mantra, not mine. Didn’t say that at all. Projecting much?
[QUOTE=Shodan]
You know that, and I know that. I was wondering if Honesty would come back with something amusing about how minorities can spot untrue statements better than white people.
[/QUOTE]
Again, the prosecution has to prove the conclusion that Zimmerman is guilty. If there is any reasonable doubt, or any reasonable scenario in which Zimmerman is not guilty, then the jury must acquit. That is to say, if the jury agrees that reasonable minds can come to the conclusion that Zimmerman is not guilty, then they must acquit.
No, there are not. The prosecution has to supply evidence and logic to fill in all the holes, such that their theory of the crime excludes any reasonable doubt as to Zimmerman’s guilt.
Yes you did. You said all the evidence shows is that Zimmerman killed Martin. Here is the quote: “Because as I just stated in my prior post, without Zimmerman’s explanation, … what does the evidence show? George Zimmerman caused the death of Trayvon Martin.”
If you’re a juror and you think a reasonable person may think Zimmerman is not guilty, you must acquit. Do you understand this concept? In fact, if you’re a juror and you’re convinced that Zimmerman is a killer, but you think a reasonable person may decide, based on the evidence, that Zimmerman is not guilty, you must acquit.
Again, you are reasonably coming to your reasonable conclusion about what you believe the evidence reasonably shows. I disagree, as do many others. And that is my point… You are absolutely convinced that the reasonable, believable interpretation to be drawn from the fact of these injuries is the justifiable use of deadly force. Many other people obviously find differently (especially if one does not find Zimmerman credible, which leaves it open about when and how the injuries occurred, most critically in relation to the moment of zimmerman’s use of deadly force. considering all the other evidence as well, the jurors need to believe a series of things leading to the conclusion that Z’s choice to use deadly force was justified) But For me to argue to you exactly how and why others see it differently is not my point, because that’s what’s been going on for 10,000 pages… That is exactly why it has been going on for 10,000 pages. Because reasonable people can reasonably find the evidence in this case to reasonably prove entirely different things.
is it your belief/understanding/contention that people can kill one another, claim they were defending themselves and juries are required to believe them for the purposes of arriving at a verdict? Because as I just stated in my prior post, without Zimmerman’s explanation, (which is essentially the same condition as not believing a single word Zimmerman has said since he killed Martin) what does the evidence show? George Zimmerman caused the death of Trayvon Martin. So, if the jury does not believe anything Zimmerman has said, then they don’t believe it was self-defense. And if it was not self-defense, then George Zimmerman is absolutely guilty of unlawfully causing Trayvon Martin to be dead.
;D 
:eek: