Yes, I see how it works, that’s why I said it doesn’t constitute proof. But, you didn’t ask for proof, you asked for evidence, which I provided.
No, he could not. There are at least 5 separate injuries to his face and head, consistent with being in a fight, and inconsistent with a fall. Plus, we know he was in a fight with Martin.
Nope, that’s not how it works. Once again, the state have to prove he was not acting in self defence, if there is any evidence that he was. Zimmerman’s witness statement that he was acting in self defence is enough evidence for that.
Wrong again, because even if Zimmerman attacked Martin, in the circumstances he describes, he would have been entitled to kill him. Of course, there’s no evidence he did attack him, but you, like you with the face has done many times in this thread, are presenting a hypothetical situation that still wouldn’t make him guilty.
If he was in reasonable fear of death or serious injury, and unable to escape, he was justified in killing Martin no matter what the circumstances. If he didn’t start the fight, it doesn’t matter whether he was able to escape. If he was justified in killing him, there was no murder.
Once again, the burden is on the state to prove all of this, beyond reasonable doubt.
You were wrong then, and you’re wrong now.
No, it’s not a special burden, it’s the standard burden of proving every element of the case beyond reasonable doubt. That includes it not being a justified killing in self defence, if the defendant claims it was.
If you want more, read the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion about it:
That decision, like we have been saying all along, says that, if the defendant can introduce any evidence that it was self defence, then the prosecution must prove it false beyond reasonable doubt.
Precisely. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defendant. Glad you’ve finally proved to yourself that that is the case.
The jury must consider whether the prosecution have proven beyond reasonable doubt that every element of the crime. The two that are in debate in this case are whether Zimmerman had a depraved mind at the time he killed Martin, and whether he was acting in justified self defence.
Just because you guys keep saying it doesn’t make it so, (as though it means anything anyway) Read it. All the way through. You will see that the only thing it says about The prosecution’s burden of proof is that the prosecution must prove ***what it always must prove: *** That the defendant is guilty of the crime they have been charged with, Beyond any reasonable doubt.
It does not say that the prosecution must prove that the self-defense claim is false. However, as I have already said several times: by successfully meeting the burden of proof that they always have to meet, they will, in effect, “prove” to the jury that the self-defense claim is false. As I said earlier: what is the distinction you believe you are drawing here, that it keeps being dragged up with a sort of AHA! attached?
Yes. And part of that proof is that he was not acting in self defence. As that is an element of the crime, if the defence introduce it.
The distinction is, as has been made extremely clear, that if the defence claim it was self defence, an additional element is added to the crime of murder that has to be proved by the state, and that element is that the defendant was not acting in self defence.
Unless they can prove that, there was no crime for the defendant to be guilty of. The burden of proof is the same, but what they have to prove has changed.
I have done. You quoted the part which says that, if the defence introduce it, the jury must consider whether it was self defence. The same as they must consider whether Zimmerman killed him, or whether he had a depraved mind, or whether the killing happen in the jurisdiction of the court, or any other elements of the crime. All the elements must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Right: a belief that Zimmerman should be found not guilty doesn’t require belief that his statement is entirely accurate or truthful, thanks to the burden of proof being on the prosecution, and it being proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s not enough to suspect that Zimmerman could have committed murder, or even that he likely did: a guilty verdict requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the evidence in this case is insufficient to meet that burden.
Where did you get this idea? Are you responding to the right person?
I didn’t say that either.
Are you sure you understand the burden of proof? Acquittal doesn’t require that self defense be the only reasonable explanation possible, it requires that murder (and the elements thereof) to be the only reasonable explanation possible.
Yes, Zimmerman’s injuries and the other evidence rule out murder (and the elements thereof) being the only reasonable explanation possible.
Well, some are, and some aren’t. But again, the reasonableness of one party to a disagreement isn’t measured by how much is written about it, but by examining the actual positions. If a mere word count is sufficient, then 9/11 Truthers are reasonable.
Out of edit window: to correct your typo, Human Action:
If self-defense is one of the reasonable possibilities when looking at the evidence, Zimmerman has to be acquitted. If murder is the ONLY reasonable possibility when looking at the evidence, Zimmerman should be convicted.
As I said, **Stoid **has a horribly hard time understanding this concept, it seems.
Yes, Martin beat Zimmerman. That’s what the injuries show physically, pictorially, and medically. There is no evidence that Zimmerman hit Martin. None. Zero. Nadda. Therefore, Martin struck ALL the blows first to last.
Since we have evidence that shows Martin came back from his house to confront Zimmerman, started the conversation with Zimmerman, there were no verbal threats by Zimmerman and no signs he struck Martin then the conclusion is that Martin, who likes to fight, started a fight with Zimmerman on purpose. This is what the evidence shows.
Of course it is. Casing a house at a time when few people are out and about is exactly the kind of behavior you’d expect from a burglar.
HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa HaHaHa
It was a young red headed white boy that I observed just standing on a sidewalk who was helping his buddies down the street to steal a car. Well maybe he had brown hair, hard to tell at night. So I’ll ask you what your point was. People commit crimes. Old Asian men commit crimes, Hispanic women commit crimes. Albino midgets commit crimes. Black teenage boys commit crimes. News at 11. It’s suspicious to stand on someone’s property when people are not around and look at it. Zimmerman knew the owner and Martin wasn’t him. He did the appropriate thing and called the police and kept his distance from Martin. Martin did the exact opposite. And while there is no law that says you have to call the police there is a law against beating people and that’s what the evidence shows.
I stopped a car theft just by observing someone standing on a sidewalk. Not even trespassing. Just by the way he was looking around. And I used the same logic Zimmerman would have used. It was late, he didn’t live at the house he was standing in front of, he was looking around in a strange manner. He wasn’t even trespassing. He was standing on the sidewalk. Busted with a phone call.
He stayed in his car and did not engage Martin. That’s clear from the phone call. There’s no indication he was confrontational at all or we would have heard it.
you can hear the change in wind noise on the tape and according to both Zimmerman and Martin they lost sight of each other. Zimmerman is where he said he was when the fight started and Martin had to back track from where he said he was. His stated location is the direction Zimmerman says he came from. Martin starts the conversation which again is what Zimmerman states. It all fits.
we have witnesses who saw it and it corresponds both with Zimmerman’s story and the physical evidence. And don’t try to play debate tactics by trying to parse the statement I made about Martin being on top of his chest. You know damn well what is being implied. Martin is on top of Zimmerman who is face up on the ground.
No we were not told Martin was picking up Zimmerman’s head and bashing it on the ground. We were told he was bashing it on the ground. The natural reaction to such an action is to try to get up off the ground and not just sit there while someone pummels you.
According to Bricker, the “scintilla” of evidence required to trigger the self-defense jury instruction can also be introduced by the prosecution. In this case, that might include Zimmerman’s medical report, witness statements, or any statements by Zimmerman in which he claimed self defense.
It does seem that way. I agree with her that a reasonable person could conclude that Zimmerman possibly committed murder. It could be the case that a reasonable person could conclude that Zimmerman likely committed murder (though I haven’t heard an theory of the crime that I’d call likely). But since that’s well below the burden of proof required, that means Zimmerman should be acquitted. I’ve no idea if he’s innocent of the crime or not, but I’m quite sure that the evidence is insufficient for a guilty verdict.
Whoops! Thanks, yes, I meant to write “conviction” rather than “it”.
Yes, they do. The prosecution must disprove self-defense, and they must do it beyond a reasonable doubt. So they either have to prove he wasn’t in fear, or that whatever fear he was in was not reasonable, and they must do so beyond a reasonable doubt.
The prosecution is the fuckup in that event. The facts support guilt for manslaughter. They could have charged manslaughter. They chose not to. They probably can’t once the trial starts; the defense can claim prejudice to their strategy: the defense can say that their defense was predicated on defending only second-degree murder by showing a careless but not malice-filled Zimmerman – essentially admitting manslaughter but denying the malice or ill-will that second-degree murder requires.
And since the facts support it, the defense is entitled to ask for a manslaughter instruction if they want. It will be a strategic decision, based on how the trial goes – if the defense feels the jury might bite on second-degree murder, they can ask for manslaughter hoping that the jury will more easily accept that compromise; if the defense feels the prosecution is on shakier ground at the end of the trial, they’ll be more content letting the jury have only the options of acquittal or second-degree murder.
I’ve lost whatever point you were trying to make. I told you what behavior by Martin triggered Zimmerman’s NEN call, as reported by him at the time he was observing it. Of course this is a subjective matter, and subject to bias or simple misinterpretation. What you consider suspicious undoubtedly varies from what other people consider suspicious. Behavior that seems suspicious often has a perfectly innocuous explanation; recall the Henry Louis Gates incident.
But what of it? You can assert that Zimmerman was motivated to call the police solely based on Martin’s race and age, but it seems to be based on nothing but your dislike of Zimmerman. No objective account of Martin’s behavior exists.
Who says they are? You asked: “on what possible basis besides being “suspicious” of black people in his neighborhood was Zimmerman suspicious of Martin in the first place?” I answered you with the possible basis, but evidently you were expecting a videotape of Martin or multiple eyewitnesses to his conduct. Sorry to disappoint.
Stoid’s hypothetical juror was justified in convicting:
The only thing I think Stoid might be a bit off-base on is with respect to what elements the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Once the defense has entered even a scintilla of evidence that supports self-defense, the state must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the conditions necessary to claim self-defense did not exist.
The jury is supposed to consider only the evidence that has been presented in court. The prosecution is expected to introduce evidence that all required elements have been satisfied (jurisdiction, who, what, where, etc). They will have to introduce evidence that GZ actually violated Florida’s 2nd degree murder statute. Beyond a reasonable doubt. If the defense claims self-defense, then the prosecution must disprove that self-defense claim. In court. Beyond a reasonable doubt.
No less an authority than the State of Florida allowed GZ to carry a concealed firearm in Florida for self-defense. There is no Florida law that says neighborhood watch volunteers must not/can not carry firearms. Any juror deciding that GZ is guilty of 2nd degree murder ONLY BECAUSE he carried a firearm is not doing their job.
While driving to the store, GZ called the non-emergency number to report a suspicious person. A police dept employee asked for a description of the suspicious person which GZ provided. An accurate description is required in order for a police officer to find the suspicious person and question them. It’s not racist to identify a black, oriental, white, latino, male, female, tall, short, thin, fat person as acting suspiciously if the suspicious person is, in fact, black, oriental, white, latino, male, female, tall, short, thin, or fat.
It’s not illegal to walk home from the store in the rain. It’s not illegal to wear a hoodie or buy skittles or watermelon drinks. It’s not illegal to leave your vehicle to get an address. It’s not illegal to observe or follow a suspicious person. It’s not illegal to ask someone a question (What are you doing here? What are you doing here?)
The “voice recognition experts” can argue amongst themselves all they want but that doesn’t mean that the court even recognizes their voice recognition “science” as admissable in court. If it’s admitted, the other side can produce their own experts to cast doubt in rebuttal. What’s a jury to believe?
It is illegal to punch someone but evidence is requred to establish who started a fight. Or that there even was a fight. The prosecutions case must be built step-by-step. Neither GZ or TM did anything illegal up until the moment the fight started.
The fight escalated into a life or death situation. Or did it? Who decides if TM or GZ believes they are in imminent danger? According to Florida law, that is a decision made by the person being threatened but that decision can be judged in court. Was it a “reasonable” decision? Did imminent danger actually exist? What evidence exists that proves or disproves the threat of imminent danger?
Further, neither Owen nor Reich is willing to claim that the results of their analysis constitute a positive identification.
During the Frye hearing, Reich said “I have an opinion but it cannot be a hard and fast opinion because of the circumstances”, and that his ID was “very” tenative.
Owen stated that “This is not really good evidence”, and that excluding Zimmerman was only “probable”.
Even if the defense didn’t have experts to contest Reich and Owen, their claims are so guarded and tenative that they prove nothing beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don’t believe that the defense needs any additional voice recognition experts other than the FBI report that the FBI can’t determined who was crying out for help that evening. If I have a choce of believing Reich, Owen, MSNBC, etc. or the FBI, I’m going with the FBI. The voice on the recording can not be determined.
doorhinge, it is rare to see brevity in criminal defense actions. They prefer not to leave things to chance. So they will, for sure, present experts (like Ken Gibson of Forensic Audio) who say after analyzing the tapes and actually comparing them to samples of voices of both Martin and Zimmerman (which the other experts didn’t do) that “voice is more likely to be Zimmerman than Martin by a significant margin”.
There is evidence external to allegations about Zimmerman’s behavior in this case that suggests he may be a racist (interviews from his coworkers) or a generally unstable person (his prior arrest for assaulting a cop, the restraining order from his ex-wife over domestic violence, the woman on the witness list accusing him of being a child molestor).
There is NO evidence external to Zimmerman’s unreliable description of the situation that the “looking into houses” took place.
Without the “looking into houses,” the whole basis for the incident changes from “reporting suspicious activity” to “leaping out of his car to pursue a black youth for no reason besides the opportunity to do so.”
The relevance to everything Zimmerman subsequently did and to his ability to make a reasonable judgment of threats is trivial to demonstrate. A lot hinges on the “looking into houses” nonsense and frankly there’s little reason to believe Zimmerman here, for all the listed reasons about his mental state as well as the simple fact that even a completely honest, nonbiased person has little chance of distinguishing “looking in the direction of a house while getting bearings” from “looking into a house” at night, in the rain, through a windshield.
True; nor is there evidence that Zimmerman’s description was incorrect. We simply don’t know.
No, the basis for the incident was clearly Zimmerman reporting what he thought was suspicious activity. Unless you’re saying that from the moment Zimmerman picked up his phone to dial NEN, he had made up his mind to pursue and attack Martin (who hadn’t run yet, mind you), or that the NEN call was an elaborate charade Zimmerman scripted in advance?
A lot hinges on “looking into houses”? What, exactly? How could you possibly prove that Martin wasn’t looking into/at houses, or that the average person wouldn’t have found Martin suspicious? Again, there is no evidence beyond Zimmerman. You don’t know what Martin was doing, and neither do I. What we do know is that Zimmerman found it suspicious, and called NEN. So, characterizing him as acting with “no reason” is inaccurate.
Really examine your thinking here. Zimmerman may be a racist or an unstable person, thus any suspicious activity he reports must not, in fact, be suspicious activity?
I swear to god I feel like I’m in the Twilight Zone…I will direct this to you, Counselor.
Ultra short version:
If the prosecution proves to the jury (beyond doubt) that a crime was committedby the accused, then they have also, by definition! have proved to the jury that the accused did not act in self-defense. One cannot be true without the other also being true, because if the jury has any meaningful questions in their minds about the possibility that the accused acted in self-defense, it means exactly the same thing as having meaningful questions about whether a crime was committed and that means doubt and that means acquittal because acting in self defense means there was no crime. Longer Version
Prosecution’s job is to prove to the jury’s satisfaction (within the various rules, obviously) that it is virtually certain that the accused committed the crime. If they succeed, then the jury has been convinced beyond doubt that a crime was committed, something which cannot be the case if they have any reasonable question or belief that the accused was defending himself, because if he was defending himself, then there was no crime. So the prosecution’s job is to prove a particular thing is true, and if they do, anything contrary to that truth that they have succeeded in proving is therefore a lie. By proving one thing, they inherently disprove the other. Six of one, half dozen of the other.
So…“disproving” self-defense **is a given. **“Proving self-defense is false” is built in to the whole system. Self-defense is just one way to raise reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury: claim you were defending yourself and present what you want to try and make the jury doubt. Then the jury considers your evidence and determines whether it causes them to doubt their finding. If it doesn’t, they convict.
It is no different than any other argument which would raise doubts in the jury’s minds about whether you committed the crime or not. Make your case, present your evidence for what-the-fuck-ever. If the jury believes the prosecution wholeheartedly and thinks the defense is totally full of shit, game over, be it self-defense or that you were insane or that you were forced at gunpoint or that you have a twin who really did it, whatever, if the jury still doesn’t doubt their belief in the prosecutions case and convicts you, then who cares whether you call it “the prosecution disproving self-defense” or “the prosecution proving that a crime was committed”?
Alternate version
Please, if you would, explain precisely the meaningful distinction between these two jurors’ conclusions:
"It has been explained to me that the prosecution must convince me beyond any reasonable doubt that their version of the facts is true, and that if they are, then this crime has been committed by this person.
Having considered all the evidence and arguments on both sides, the prosecution has proved to me that this person committed this crime.
The defense presented evidence that the accused acted in self-defense.I found none of it credible, and therefore it does not cause me to doubt, reasonably or not, the correctness of my finding that the accused committed the crime.
I therefore vote to convict."
And all the same stuff as above except for the second to last paragraph:
“The defense presented their evidence that accused acted in self-defense, but the prosecutions proof, which convinced me absolutely that the accused committed this crime, means that the defendant’s claims are absolutely false. Therefore I do not doubt, reasonably or not, the correctness of my finding that the accused committed the crime.”
However you want to word it, the prosecution’s job is to convince the jury that the accused committed the crime, which automatically means that they must overcome anything that the defense tosses in to the mix to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. If the jury finds that they have had it proven to them that the accused committed the crime, and they don’t have any doubts about it, then the prosecution has done a masterful job of proving to their satisfaction what the truth is, and in doing so has automatically proved that any alternate claims or theories or possibilities that are incompatible with the prosecution’s proven truth must be false.
So what the hell are all these people on about? What is the scenario in which the prosecution proves to the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused did in fact commit the crime he has been charged with, yet simultaneously have failed to disprove self-defense? The two things cannot exist in the same space, for god’s sake, if one is true the other can’t be, so why all the arguing with me about it?