you with the face – is this something I can explain in a better way? “Reasonable doubt” is something that people sometimes struggle with, and accused defendants often want it to mean some impossibly high standard. But It means what I said above: a finder of fact – the jury, usually – is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt when all other reasonable possibilities except guilt are proved not to have happened… in other words, what’s proven is the only reasonable possibility of what happened is that the accused is guilty. If there are two reasonable possibilities, even if guilt is more likely than innocence, that’s not enough to convict.
The prosecution must prove to the jury that Zimmerman was guilty. If all they prove is that the jury should be strong skeptical, Zimmerman must be acquitted.
It would be grotesque to suggest that anybody that night was channeling the specific lyrics to a song. What was being suggested in the thread is that it implausible that a phrase like “I’m begging you” is automatically in the vocabulary of a black 17-year-old. So I only meant to provide one example of it being in pop culture.
If that example offends you, I just did a random googles search for tweets:
#xposeWL@TV3Xpose CANT TWEET ON THIS ACCOUNT ANYMORE (@ amymursxo) PLEASSSSE I SHOULD BE IN BED PLEASE IM BEGGIN YOU PLEAS
All I’m trying to point out is that the phrase is out there in the world of youth. Some of this case, if it ever gets to a jury, may hinge on how plausible they think certain alleged quotes are. Trayvon Martin’s father said he first disbelieved accounts of his son’s death when he was told that his son had said “You got me” before dying.
But I think most people don’t know much about teenage slang in Florida.
In this particular instance, it doesn’t really make a lot of sense to argue that the phrase might have been in his vocabulary (which ought to be fairly uncontroversial) - the jury is never going to hear this phrase attributed to Trayvon Martin, because it doesn’t appear in the recordings. The prosecution would be as likely to put a medium on the stand as to have an expert witness make a claim as weak as that.
Alan R. Reich has no connection to the case, he’s just someone who was happy to talk to the Washington Post for a transparently exploitative piece. His claim that this phrase appears on the recording carries about as much weight as his namesake Wilhelm’s claims about orgone accumulation. It’s not relevant.
Of course it is. If Zimmerman said Martin did all kinds of crazy things that are too fantastical to be believed (like he flew up in the sky like a bird hybridized with Michael Jordan), the jury can still convict him even if they think Z has convinced himself that Martin did all these crazy things to him. It is not necessary for him to be a liar; just not credible. Which means circumstantial and physical evidence, and the statements of more credible witnesses would outweigh Zimmerman’s story.
Zimmerman isn’t on trial for lying. He’s on trial for murder. As the only witness to the entirety of what happened, his statement is extremely important. If that is impeached, what else does the defense have to go on?
It’s funny how earlier, Zimmerman’s statement was held out as being a key piece of evidence and used as justification as to why he shouldn’t have been arrested, but now suddenly the attitude has shifted towards “yeah, it might contain holes, but that’s okay because they can’t prove he’s lying just cuz he got a few details wrong!” Okay, but if we can’t expect him to explain in a halfway credible way how he got his injuries, then we have to let the rest of the evidence speak for itself.
And that evidence suggests that Zimmerman initiated a conflict with Martin for the purpose of keeping him from getting away from the cops, and Martin was shot dead while trying to defend himself from someone who had no authority to detain him.
Is it a foregone conclusion that Zimmerman will have to take the stand to explain his claim of self-defense during the trial proper? The state doesn’t have to prove he is lying if he never testifies, would they?
They will, at minimum, have to prove false the claim that he acted in self defense. That would in effect prove him a liar, although that may not be the actual way they present the argument.
If by “initiated a conflict” you mean that Zimmerman was the first to physically assault Martin instead of vice versa, no, there is no evidence of this. The nature and extent of the injuries to Zimmerman, and the differing nature and extent of the injuries to Martin, suggest exactly the opposite.
If by “initiated a conflict” you mean Zimmerman confronted Martin in an effort to find out what his business was, as has also been pointed out many times, this is legally irrelevant. When Zimmerman confronted Martin, this did not constitute an assault, a battery, or a legal threat of either, and therefore did not give Martin the right to “defend” himself. You do not “defend” yourself against someone asking you questions by punching them in the face, knocking them down, or smashing their head into the ground. Someone asking you questions does not give you the legal right to respond in that fashion.
So you cannot use “but Zimmerman asked Martin questions!” as the basis for a charge of second-degree murder.
Thanks for posting this. It solidifies my hypothesis that Zimmerman is a narcissist. This was a guy who desperately wanted to be a cop, but couldn’t, due to his previous criminal history. What does he do instead? He becomes a neighborhood watchman armed with a firearm with zero training in self-defense. The latter doesn’t surprise me: nearly all men who hit women are too pussy to fight real men in a fair fight. This dude won’t last longer than Dahmer in prison.
Dude, what I wrote is not in conflict with my theory of why Zimmerman shot Martin. Stop looking for me come to your side!
You think Zimmerman shot Martin to keep him from getting away, correct? But he could have accomplished that by shooting the kid in the leg. Purely off of speculation, I believe Z thought it was in his best interest to shoot Martin dead to cover up the mess he’d caused. IOW, I think Martin was shot not because he was defending himself, but because he had to defend himself in the first place.
The charges suggest Corey sees this like I do. But well see what comes out in court.
What is the relevance of the lyrics of that song? The reference to the song title was just to say that the phrase “I am begging you” exists in pop culture and is therefore not unreasonable for someone to have said that phrase. That’s it. Are you claiming that the phrase “I am begging you” does not exist anywhere in pop culture that Martin could not have ever heard it? That this phrase would be completely foreign to him? If not, then what are you arguing here? I’m not getting it. Why would they need to admit anything? What is the nature of the screw up that you are referring to? I guess I just don’t understand the significance of your objection here.
The lyrics of this particular song have nothing to do with anything and are completely and utterly immaterial to this discussion. So what are you trying to get them to admit exactly? The phrase “I am begging you” exists in pop culture and is a fairly common set of words. I don’t understand the incredulity here, and I really don’t understand what it is that you think you are arguing or that you are expecting him to admit here.
You also can’t get away with killing someone just because they punch you. Even if they touched you first.
The standard is that one has to be in reasonable fear of serious harm. Does a punch count as that? Especially if that punch may have been allowable under the SYG law given the circumstances (law-abiding teenager approached billigerently by a man on a dark sidewalk at night, after being spooked earlier by the same man running after him like a maniac for no discernible reason).
The last 40 second before Martin was shot doesn’t suggest that Z was getting his head bashed in or suffocated, if indeed he was the voice on the tape yelling for help. So what about that? Even if Martin attacked Z initially, if Martin back down and was not fighting, does this still allow Z to shoot him in the chest?
These are questions that the jury will have to answer. It’s not going to be as simple as “Martin hit Zimmerman, so its legal for Z to shoot the kid dead”.
I don’t see anything in your dictionary that says that someone is entitled to punch another person in the face and begin smashing his head when that person asks you a question.
So no, conflict in this case is not initiating the conflict. The person who threw the first punch initiated the conflict. There is no evidence to date that that person was Zimmerman, there is evidence that it was Martin.
Asking another person questions does not constitute an attack, and therefore does not justify violent response.
On another note, there’s been a lot of speculation in this thread about the content of GZ’s text messages. But it should be kept in mind that the state investigator conceded at the bond hearing that they had no evidence as to who initiated the altercation. So whatever is in those text messages, it’s likely not anything that sheds any light on this angle.
There is the statement of the girl who was on the phone with Martin at the time, who will say that she heard Martin say “Get off! Get off!” before the call ended.
This indicates that the struggle began with Zimmerman putting his hands on Martin, which is not surprising, since immediately before this Zimmerman had expressed dismay at the thought of him getting away.
The jury will be faced with two substantially different narratives. In one, Zimmerman is defending against a sudden and unprovoked attack, and in another he has initiated a physical confrontation which ends with a homicide.
To believe the self defense claim, you have to believe that a young man with no history of violence, objecting to unwanted scrutiny, doubled back and launched into a berserker assault steps away from his host’s doorstep, while still on the phone with his girlfriend.
Alternately, the struggle took place because Zimmerman overstepped his rights and tried to keep Martin on the spot until the police arrived, and Martin reacted because he thought he was being stalked by a John Wayne Gacy type. This makes sense in the context of the phone call - with regard to both what the girlfriend has said regarding his state of mind, and also to the fact that he was *on the phone at all *when the struggle took place.
There is evidence that suggests the confrontation started with Zimmerman unlawfully putting his hands on Martin. You might protest that it’s not the best evidence we could hope for (and I am certainly inclined to agree,) but the only evidence we have to suggest otherwise is Zimmerman’s own statement. Does the narrative he describes provide a reasonable doubt? That’s the what the big show is going to be about, isn’t it?
