But, but it’s possible to be in reasonable fear of imminent harm while also being afraid of being seen! Who is to say he didn’t have multiple reasons for pulling the trigger, huh? If one of those reasons was for self-defense, then it means he acted lawfully! You can’t prove that he wasn’t in reasonable fear of imminent harm because of the absence of evidence!!!
I thought it was pretty clear. From what you quoted:
“Give only if the defendant is charged with an independent forcible felony.”
“Independent” meaning not related to what the accused is on trial for. For example, if someone just robbed a bank, during getaway someone tries to stop him, the bank robber shoots that someone, he cannot claim self-defense. The bank robbery is a crime that is independent of the shooting.
See: স্লট মেশিন রুলেট ২০২৫ বিনামূল্যে সুযোগ
First, the forcible felony exception applies only when the accused is charged with at least two criminal acts, that is the act for which the accused is claiming self-defense and a separate forcible felony. See Giles v. State, 831 So. 2d 1263, 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) and Martinez v. State, 981 So. 2d 449, 453-54 (Fla. 2008). This therefore, precludes the forcible felony instruction if the self-defense act itself qualifies as a forcible felony.
Second, the defendant must be engaged in a separate and independent felonious act at the time of the alleged self-defense. Cleveland v. State, 887 So. 2d 362, 365 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Under this requirement, a separate and independent forcible felony that occurs at some time other than when the alleged act of self-defense occurs, will not support the forcible felony instruction to the jury.
So:
-
Zimmerman is not charged with that independent felony. Because -
-
There was no independent felony.
QED
Sure, no problem.
There is your first mistake. There is independent evidence for most if not all of the relevant parts of Zimmerman’s story.
And there is your second mistake. Zimmerman does not need evidence to be exonerated; the prosecution needs evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt.
That’s the wrong approach.
I don’t know why you are excluding the 911 call, since it happened well before the shooting and can be used to establish state of mind, and is reliable insofar as it was recorded, and Zimmerman had no reason to lie about anything, nor did he know he was going to shoot someone later.
But again, you are taking the wrong approach. Assume no statements from Zimmerman, and then show the evidence that the prosecution has available, and how it proves Zimmerman committed second-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, as it always has.
Apparently not. Martin’s own father at first said it was not his son on the tape, and later changed his mind.
Martin was coming back from the store, and someone spotted him and started following him. (Source: Dee Dee’s testimony.) Martin then went to his father’s house and the two men lost sight of each other. (Same source.) Martin then doubled back and confronted Zimmerman. (Same source.) Martin punched Zimmerman in the nose, breaking his nose and blackening his eyes (medical report,autopsy). Martin knocked Zimmerman to the ground and sat on top of him (witness account, grass stains on Zimmerman’s jacket, grass stains on Martin’s knees). Martin was bashing Zimmerman’s head on the ground (medical report, witness testimony). Martin was winning the fight and Zimmerman was yelling for help (witness testimony, medical report, 911 calls). Zimmerman then fired once, striking Martin and killing him (autopsy). Police then arrived (police report).
Now it is up to the prosecution to describe a scenario, and to produce evidence establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that it happened their way. They have to produce positive evidence in favor of what they claim. Since Zimmerman has claimed self-defense, they also have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense.
Suppose someone does not believe the evidence as described above establishes Zimmerman’s innocence? In court, that means Zimmerman is Not Guilty.
Because Zimmerman is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Regards,
Shodan
Er, no, I didn’t. I said your Exhibit B would go to disproving self defense, meaning that it’s inculpatory. It would have to be balanced against the other evidence, such as Zimmerman’s injuries and the witness statements.
We’d also need to know the defense’s position on the text messages.
To sum up: I said the defense had to disprove self defense, which means addressing the evidence that suggests self-defense. As the text messages don’t exist, that means addressing the wounds. If there were another way to disprove self defense, such as the text messages, that might suffice on its own. But, there isn’t.
I respectfully differ with your conclusions. If I were on the jury, and the prosecution never mentioned Zimmerman’s injuries, then I can take a nap, because that’s reasonable doubt, right there. There was a fight, in which Zimmerman was on his back and pinned, and in which he was injured. That, all by itself, it reasonable doubt that Zimmerman wasn’t acting in self-defense.
what? Is there a witness I’m not aware of? Cite your evidence of what transpired and not what you would like to have happened.
No, completely untrue.
Suppose the state adduces evidence that shows Zimmerman texted his brother as follows: “Hey, there’s this black kid hanging out under the awning. Calling the cops to fuck with him and teach blacks to come hang around here!” and “The little asshole just walked by my truck. I’m gonna chase him down and scare the shit out of him with my gun,” and “shit shit shit I got into it with him and I ended up shooting him.”
That’s enough to prove the ill-intent requirement of second-degree murder. If Zimmerman does not raise self-defense as an issue, that (along with coroner testimony that a human being died in Seminole County, etc) is enough to convict him.
But if Zimmerman raises self-defense, then the prosecution has to disprove it. This requires more, because the texts prove that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor but they don’t prove he was not in reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury.
So there’s the example you demand: enough evidence to convict on second-degree murder, but not enough to defeat self-defense.
Correct!
And the forcible felony must be distinct from the murder – that is, the forcible felony can’t be the same actus reus that encompasses the murder.
Again you miss the concept of legal sufficiency.
It’s true the jury could reason as you imagine above. But they don’t have to – they have, on the record, evidence that they can rely upon to say Zimmerman shot to avoid being seen. That’s enough to support a factual finding that “not being seen” was the reason.
Don’t confuse what the jury might do with what the jury is legally permitted to do. Without any such evidence, they can’t reach any such conclusion. If they do anyway, the judge will throw out the verdict, or the appeals court will.
With such evidence, their verdict (if they reach a guilty verdict) is legally unassailable.
Zyanthia just sent me a PM that completely and correct laid out the additional elements the state must prove after the assertion of self-defense.
The gauntlet is thrown down for you with the face to do the same, then.
That’s not what we were talking about in this case, we were talking about a hypothetical where I did the crime and I was charged with a forcible felony. So, you agree with the hypothetical, but don’t think it applies to Zimmerman case and I agree since Zimmerman isn’t charged with another felony, but that doesn’t mean my understanding of the law was wrong, which is what you claimed.
I don’t get this line of thinking. I live in Chicago where there may be, at any time, a host of ne’er-do-wells that may roam my neighborhood. There are crowds of students that loiter aroun I don’t think it’d be even legal for me to call 911 for every suspicious person. If I did, I’d be calling 24/7, or damn near. Heck, even when I lived in Ohio and Michigan, I never found a need to call the cops for “suspicious” behavior.
That’s if you buy Zimmerman’s “You got me” and “You’re going to die today” story. I don’t, although I respect the fact that you do, bless your heart.
[QUOTE=Condescending Robot;]
There’s good evidence that he probably didn’t say any such thing, since he had just been shot through the lung and heart. Zimmerman is projecting his movie-fantasy version of how people talk onto the real world (more evidence for his superhero/vigilante complex) and also trying to downplay that he was an excellent marksman who shot directly through his target’s heart in one go. He looks more dangerous to the jury if he’s able to just execute people, as opposed to flailing about desperately for a gun while being pummeled. So again, reason to lie, evidence of lying, evidence of delusional character.
[/QUOTE]
Condescending Robot hit it on the head.
- Honesty
It was wrong in that in your example the felony was not an independent one.
You think it’s illegal to call the police about suspicious behaviour? Are you for real?
Seriously, calling the police if you see something suspicious is a good thing, and to be commended. Ignoring said behaviour shows contempt for your neighbours and your town.
Hmm, I guess I didn’t make that clear, I thought the fact that the prosecution had to prove 2 crimes made it clear that there was an independent crime, my apologies. How would you like me to word it next time so it’s clearer I was talking about an independent crime?
And ty Bricker for confirming my pm!
Again, even though there may be two crimes in your example, they are not independent. Here again is what you gave as an example:
“I chase after someone with the intent to commit a forcible felony against them, they then turn around and start beating me up, and I shoot them.”
Right, say my focible crime was holding up for his wallet with my gun. Instead of giving me his wallet he beats me up, so I shoot him. The murder was a separate crim from the hold up, and thus I couldn’t use self defense, even though I was losing the fight for the wallet.
If I keep calling to the Chicago Police Department over every person that looked suspicious (which would be every hour, on the hour), I’m sure I’d be brought up on charges for unlawful use of 911. I might be wrong, but it’s not something I intend on trying. You’re also talking about suspicious behavior as if there’s some objective standard. There’s not. If someone walking in the rain, who am I to say they look suspicious? Maybe they forgot their umbrella, maybe they are waiting for a friend, maybe they are looking for wallet lost on the ground. I just don’t see myself making assumptions about people or their behavior. Just not my mode of operation, I guess.
- Honesty
Lol. In Bricker’s world, a defendant can confess to committing aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and then confess to killing his target–victimized solely because of the color of skin, I might add–during the commission of this crime, and the State can’t convict him if the defendant claims he killed in self defense. He typed this all serious-like and everything. I can practically see the confidence in his face when he hit “submit reply”.
An astute reader should have already observed that Bricker has just said that a defendant can’t kill someone lawfully if it is determined they were in the process of committing an independent forcible felony when the killing occurred. I mean, he just posted the language for this law. If the State has texts which show Zimmerman went after Martin with the intent to scare him with his gun for the offense of being a black, then saying they disproved self defense is actually an understatement. They make self defense entirely moot.
If you think everybody is suspicious then maybe you should see a doctor about that. I see people in my neighborhood all the time. Some of the appear to be ne’er-do-wells. I’ve only called the police a handful of times.
I based the comment you responded to (about where Martin was and what he said) on Dee Dee’s recall of what happened. But bless your heart for trying. You just keep ignoring the evidence.