Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread

In My Humble Opinion
10783

Because, if self defence isn’t raised as an issue, the jury are not required to consider it. In some jurisdictions, it is a crime to kill in self defence, in some or all circumstances.

Under Florida law, if any evidence that the killing was in self defence is introduced, the prosecution must, as part of proving that the defendant is guilty, prove that he was not acting in self defence. That’s not something they do as an aside in the process of proving him guilty, it’s an element of the crime that they must prove, of the same importance as all the others. That is not the case in other jurisdictions, where self defence is an affirmative defence.

The argument is because several people, yourself included, still fail to understand that Zimmerman does not have to prove he acted in self defence, he simply has to claim it, or have that claim otherwise introduced into the proceedings, and that should this happen, it will change the nature of the crime he’s accused of.

That is to say, if he killed Martin in the relevant jurisdiction, with a depraved mind, and so forth, if the prosecution can’t prove there was no self defence there was no crime committed. that would not be the case if self defence was not introduced.

10784

And, all racism and intentional lying aside, if he is so unreasonable/paranoid as to confuse “walking near a house” or “looking in a direction that has a house in it” with “peering into houses for the purpose of burglary,” to enough certainty to call the cops, then he also is much more likely to confuse any number of things that do not justify self-defense via lethal force with those things.

If everything hinges on what Zimmerman said, then whether Zimmerman is willing and able to give an accurate account of events (as a general character trait or specifically in reference to the events of the night in February) seems to matter a hell of a lot. I don’t see any way around this without hitting the old “Zimmerman said it happened this way and since the other person who was there is conveniently dead, no one is allowed to disagree” bell for a billionth time.

10785

Everything does not hinge on what Zimmerman said. It hinges on what the prosecution can prove. What Zimmerman has said in the past, or may say at trial, can make that task easier or harder, but there is much more evidence that will need to be taken into account.

10786

Here’s an interesting tidbit: right now, the only potential jury candidates being considered are ones that in the answer to the particular question in the questonnaire said they can put what they’ve heard and read aside and/or haven’t formed an opinion. Candidates that replied that they already formed an opinion which wouldn’t change were excused without questioning.

Well today they talked to juror E-7 - Jerry Counelis. When questioned, he claimed he’d be impartial. In the end, they asked him if a particular posting on Facebook was his. He said yes. Here’s the posting:

…In Sanford…& I CAN tell you THIS. “Justice”…IS Coming!..& I’ll tell you why. The ONLY reason this corrupt City Police dept. was stonewalling was because since they KNOWINGLY worked with this Self-appointed “Neighborhood Watch” Security…& KNEW he carried a weapon…They knew they AND the Homeowners Association were Liable for HUGE $$$ damages in court…MINUTES after the shooting occurred. But with the noise WE made…it couldn’t be covered up. I only hope the Feds go farther than just THIS case in investigating This “Police Force”. The Seminole County "Justice’ System needs an ENEMA…& they just MIGHT GET one!

I wonder if he can be charged with perjury…

10787

You don’t know if a reasonable, non-paranoid person would have found Martin suspicious. I don’t know how else to say it. No recording exists of Martin’s behavior, nor have any other witnesses come forward.

Also, Zimmerman allegedly fired his pistol in response to being pinned and beaten. The evidence supports this account. Not a lot can be “confused” in such a situation, either you’re being pinned and beaten, or you aren’t. If Zimmerman claimed he shot Martin for coming toward him in a sinister fashion, then his judgement might have some bearing. But that’s not what Zimmerman says, and that’s not what the evidence indicates.

Again, your thought process here is highly suspect:

  1. Martin wasn’t doing anything suspicious.
  2. Zimmerman reported that he was.
  3. Thus, Zimmerman has poor judgement.
  4. Thus, Zimmerman didn’t shoot Martin in self defense.

Setting aside the tenuous connection between 3 and 4 in this particular case, you can’t prove 1. You can assume it, but that’s of no value.

Almost nothing hinges on what Zimmerman said.

10788

Your unwavering faith in the justice system is cute, but be rest assured, if you think that the jury will not take into consideration Zimmerman’s prior behavior from witnesses , then I think you’re being naive. Do you really think that when Witness 8 comes to the stand: when she talks about how Zimmerman sexually abused her and the racist comments from his family, do you think these revelations won’t sway the jury?

  • Honesty
10789

Here’s some more info about a secret witness who can allegedly back Z’s version of events.

10790

hmarvin, this is more than a year old and “John” is not really a secret, his testimony is public.

10791

There will be no “revelations” since that testimony will not be allowed.

10792

That’s Witness 9, actually. And she won’t be taking the stand, her testimony isn’t admissible under Florida’s rules of evidence.

10793

You’re missing the point. The prosecution cannot prove that ***a crime was committed *** by the accused unless they can prove that the accused did not act in self-defense.

Part of the necessary process, IOW, is that the prosecution disproves self-defense. That is another element that they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the prosecution cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman shot Martin, Zimmerman walks. If the prosecution cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman acted out of malice or ill will, Zimmerman walks. If the prosecution cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not in fear of his life or serious injury, Zimmerman walks.

Yes, if the jury finds that a crime was committed, then Zimmerman will be convicted. If the prosecution does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense, then they will not, and cannot, find that a crime has been committed.

Regards,
Shodan

10794

[QUOTE=Condescending Robot]
And, all racism and intentional lying aside, if he is so unreasonable/paranoid as to confuse “walking near a house” or “looking in a direction that has a house in it” with “peering into houses for the purpose of burglary,” to enough certainty to call the cops, then he also is much more likely to confuse any number of things that do not justify self-defense via lethal force with those things.
[/QUOTE]
Let’s assume for the moment that this is true. Then it makes sense to believe in those portions of Zimmerman’s statement that are backed up by independent evidence. That way, we have an indication that Zimmerman is accurate, and not being biased by his alleged paranoia. This is not the same thing as saying “I believe his statement because his statement is evidence”. It is saying “I believe those parts of his statement because they are corroborated by evidence other than his statement”.

So, Zimmerman began following Martin, but lost sight of him. We know this from the NEN transcript, and from Dee Dee’s testimony.

Martin then doubles back and confronts Zimmerman. We know this from Dee Dee’s testimony and from the distance and relationship of where the fight took place and where Martin’s father’s girlfriend’s house was located.

Martin then confronts Zimmerman, words are exchanged, and Martin punches Zimmerman in the face. We know this from Dee Dee’s testimony, and from Zimmerman’s broken nose and black eyes, and from the injury to Martin’s knuckle.

Martin is very much getting the better of the fight, and Zimmerman is screaming for help. We know this from the injuries to Zimmerman, the lack of injury to Martin, and to witnesses.

Martin is sitting on Zimmerman and slamming his head on the ground. We know this from the injuries to the back of Zimmerman’s head, the grass stains on the back of Zimmerman’s shirt, and the grass stains to Martin’s knees.

Zimmerman, in fear of his life or of serious injury, pulls out his pistol and fires once. We know that from the GSW on Martin, and the fact that only one shell from Zimmerman’s gun has been fired.

The police then arrive.

So, the essential elements of Zimmerman’s account are that he spotted Martin, started following him, lost sight of him, Martin doubled back into sight, and attacked Zimmerman, breaking his nose and knocking him to the ground. Martin then jumped on top of Zimmerman and began bashing his head on the ground. Zimmerman then drew his weapon and fired, killing Martin.

Each and every one of those elements is backed up by evidence other than Zimmerman’s statements to police after the shooting.

And there is no evidence for any other scenario.

Regards,
Shodan

10795

Wow, that just goes to show you, the law is truly fucked up. Though, I find it cute (and ironic here) the law makes an exception for child molestation which, admittedly, Zimmerman is, but doesn’t make an exception for murderers. Looks like there’s still a loophole for them to talk about the bullying of his colleagues as well as his prior record for domestic abuse and police officer assault. Here’s hoping that Witness 9 will be able to take him to court and get closure after he’s been convicted for the murder of Trayvon Martin.

Another thing that will hurt him: his Chris Christie-like weight gain. I’ll leave to you to decide why that is.

  • Honesty
10796

Several of those elements are exaggerations, interpretations, or outright fabrications that the pro-Zimmerman brigade has tried to “big lie” into existence by repeating them over and over again. The testimony from the girlfriend doesn’t actually say what you say it does, the “grass stains” don’t really exist and where there was moisture/grass blades in the photos doesn’t match where it should be if he was lying on his back in the grass, the head wounds are practically on the top of his head and don’t match where they would be if someone was bashing him into the sidewalk from above, and somehow, you expect us to believe Martin beat Zimmerman to a bloody pulp without getting any of Zimmerman’s DNA on himself, and Zimmerman shot Martin from six inches away without getting any of Martin’s DNA on the gun.

In the scenario you have constructed, where all this physical evidence supports Zimmerman and his credibility is bolstered or irrelevant as a result, this is a far different case. Based on the evidence that has actually been released, all we have is a proven liar with nothing substantive to back up his claim of self-defense, hence all of the dancing in circles about the state needing to prove non-self-defense and other procedural issues. This trial will be held in the real world, which is a problem for you because it means a lot of the nonexistent evidence will not be introduced, but also a problem for the prosecution because it means a lot of things that should matter are being excluded and the jurors will probably not vote to convict based on the general gaps in evidence as to what happened.

10797

Stoid, you and I are exactly on the same page with this. Bricker has convinced folks that the prosecution can’t simply prove that Zimmerman has committed murder. He has insisted that disproving self-defense is an added hurdle the State has to overcome.

After all these pages, though, he has yet to explain how someone can murder someone simultaneous to kiling them in self-defense. The two conditions are mutually exclusive, not just logically but legally. The assumption that the prosecution’s burden of proof increases just because the defendant claims self-defense strikes me as absurd on its face. And this is why, plus other things, I put little stock in what Brickeris saying.

10798

The law is written that way for a very good reason. If we allowed trials to become a parade of one-sided accusations of the defendant’s bad character, we would see much less justice done. A trial isn’t a referendum on whether the defendant is a good person, or whether they are guilty of other, uncharged crimes, it’s a finding of fact as to whether they committed a particular crime in a particular set of circumstances.

What loophole do you speak of?

You’re have to tell me, because I have no idea. All it puts me in mind of is that he’s probably eating out of stress, and in seclusion and not exercising.

10799

I assume he mean that the jury will be sizing up whether they believe that he was unable to physically resist whatever it is they believe Martin was doing without shooting him, and his larger current size may influence that calculus. They will see plenty of pictures of how he looked shortly after the shooting, but it’s inevitable that seeing him sitting there day after day will have some effect.

10800

What does it say, then? “Nuh uh!” isn’t very convincing.

The original police report by Smith states that “While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground”.

Here’s the discovery photo of Martin’s pants.

No, they aren’t. Photo.

Zimmerman’s blood was on Martin’s clothes.

Six inches, eh? The autopsy just says “intermediate range”. Are you saying blood must have shot out of Martin’s chest and onto the gun?

I agree, if you distort or are ignorant of the evidence, this is a far different case. I disagree about who’s doing that.

The state’s burden of proof is a major part of any criminal trial.

The state does need to disprove self-defense.

10801

[QUOTE=Condescending Robot]
I assume he mean that the jury will be sizing up whether they believe that he was unable to physically resist whatever it is they believe Martin was doing without shooting him, and his larger current size may influence that calculus. They will see plenty of pictures of how he looked shortly after the shooting, but it’s inevitable that seeing him sitting there day after day will have some effect.
[/QUOTE]
I thought it was because Honesty stated falsely that Zimmerman was on anti-psychotics, had gotten called on it, and was trying to repeat the accusation in such a way as to avoid having to back it up.

Regards,
Shodan

10802

It’s actually very simple. A crime consists of multiple elements, each of which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

In Florida, if a scintilla of evidence of self-defense is introduced, the jury is instructed as to an additional element which must be disproved beyond a reasonable doubt: that the defendant was acting in self defense.

Absurd or not, it’s the truth. Perhaps instead of rejecting it outright because it feels wrong, you should try to prove that he’s wrong.