If he knew people could be watching him while he did it? Definitely would be worried about that - brandishing is either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on circumstances.
On edit: in Florida it is a misdemeanor.
Chronos, where are you getting your information? It looks like your interlocutors are referring to trial transcripts.
And we know no gun-owner would ever do anything that he shouldn’t do with his gun. That’s just common sense.
Very few CCW holders misuse their guns.
Florida: Gun Control – Just Facts - stats for 23 years:
CCW licenses issued: 1,825,143
Licenses revoked for crime using a gun: 168.
That’s 168. In 23 years. Out of 1.8M.
That stat means fuck-all in this case. I’m sure it’s a logical phallacy, but I just can’t place my finger on it at the moment.
That’s true but all your weird allusions to things Zimmerman may have done are also irrelevant to the legal case. The only things that are relevant are what it can be proved he had done.
Purely as a mental exercise and for understanding, can we pretend that I am a juror and all the jurors think like I do.
Even though I’m not required, I elect to tell you that this is our process of arriving at conviction:
evidence of ill-will: these assholes/punks always get away. Not ill-will based on personal experience, generalize malice, resentment, frustration and anger that now has a target to focus on in the form of Martin.
Evidence that we, the fact finders, used to arrive at our conclusion that it was an unlawful killing (the ill will above, but if that’s legally unacceptable, we’ll take manslaughter) and not self-defense:
-
We all have found Zimmerman to be entirely lacking in credibility, and find that his inconsistencies and implausibilities are centered around the areas which make his actions legally unacceptable. Therefore, any detail of his claims which lacks clear corroboration we are free to reject as false, and we generally do.
-
Having found item one to be true, we consider his falsehoods to be evidence that he has knowledge that he is guilty of unlawful killing, and therefore evidence that he ***is ***guilty of unlawful killing. (consciousness of guilt).
-
We find that his statement regarding assholes getting away, along with his statement regarding having the police call to be sufficient to indicate that he intended to and did continue to look for Martin after he got off the phone.
-
We find that Jeantel’s testimony credible as to what the two said, and we find her statement regarding Martin saying “get off me” to be a true one.
-
From that we infer that Zimmerman did something to try to detain Martin, and that Martin violently resisted.
-
From Witness #XX we find that the two men were involved in a short verbal altercation/pursuit. We infer that it was Zimmerman pursuing Martin.
-
We have witnesses reporting both men on top at different times, we find that the struggle included both men on top at different times, with neither having a clear and consistent physical advantage over the other.
-
From the 911 phone call, we all find that the voice in the background is young, and profoundly terrified, and we found Martin’s mothers statement that it was her son believable. The voice is cut off abruptly at the shot, we all agree that these things together make it certain that the voice is Martin’s, and we infer that his terrorized screams were a result of seeing the gun well before the point the non-credible Zimmerman claims he produced it.
-
We find that as a result of Zimmerman’s pattern of lies, implausibilities, and inconsistencies, his claims regarding his reasons for climbing on martin’s back are false. Since we know he did climb on Martin’s back, because witnesses saw him, we believe (although it’s not necessary to our conviction, we’re just sharing our thought processes) that Zimmerman was well aware that he had shot the boy, knew he had doens so wrongfully, and was actually interested in making sure the boy expired before he would be questioned. Putting his weight on the boy’s mortally wounded body would have certainly helped to accomplish that. Putting a cherry on top of his murder.
Since these are our findings of fact, our reasonable inferences from the evidence, we find that Zimmerman hunted Martin down and tried to detain him, thereby provoking him to a violent response, and that Zimmerman produced the gun well in advance of the point he stated, making it impossible, in our fact-finding eyes, for there to have, at any point, been a sincere need to actually shoot Martin at all, making the self-defense claim false and the killing unlawful. We believe the ill-will is established as described and therefore vote Guilty of Murder in The Second Degree.
Now… where in here is it unacceptable for the jury to find as they did in this fantasy? Because that’s what’s been said all along, that it wouldn’t be possible under the rules of evidence and jury instructions to arrive at a legal conviction. The only thing I can think of that might be claimed is excessive inference stacking (and as you now know, it is not at all a fixed rule of only one, it is dependent entirely on the inference and fact being discussed.) but I think that was avoided and that all inferences flowed directly from evidence that the fact finders found credible.
So, if you, Bricker, think this would be overturned in an appeal, please explain why. I’m not saying it wouldn’t, I’m saying I do not understand what part would be unacceptable as a finding made by the jury.
Thank you as always, Counselor!
'That makes no sense. You say it’s a fact that TM was beating GZ
AND
you say TM was an innocent boy. How can TM be innocent of beating GZ when TM was actually beating GZ?
Is this a scenario where the entire court system is replaced with the Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland?
If I’m understanding what I’ve read correctly, it is at the pre-trial immunity hearing (waived by Zimmerman) that the defendant would have to prove his claim by a preponderance of the evidence. At trial, the defendant needn’t prove anything - he only needs the self-defense claim to raise a reasonable doubt.
Jury Instructions
Doreen, it is my understanding (and while I don’t watch L&O or most legal dramas I am no expert on the law), that to even get the self defense instruction in for the jury instructions the judge has to feel that the defense demonstrated a plausible self defense claim–meaning to a preponderance of the evidence. I could be wrong on that. I don’t like to speak off the cuff, but I’m going 100% from “memory of past threads” and remembered posts from other members in those past threads, so I’ll openly admit I could be 100% wrong on that.
You are. In Florida (and I think around 20 other states) self-defense has to be introduced, but it doesn’t have to be proven, even by preponderance. It is prosecution’s task to disprove it, beyond reasonable doubt. It is not called “affirmative defense” because the defendant has to prove something. It is called “affirmative defense” because the defendant “affirms” the fact that he killed someone - but.
After some review I’d say this is probably not the case. Judge Nelson gave the jury instructions on self defense that she informed counsel she would be giving to the jury before deliberations right after voir dire was completed–so it would appear that was going in the instructions regardless of what was said in the trial.
I believe you’re correct on why it is called an affirmative defense, but I know in other States many forms of affirmative defense the defendant has a legal burden to prove their claim to either a “preponderance of the evidence” or beyond “clear and convincing” doubt. For example Ohio says on affirmative defense, “On an affirmative defense the defendant bears both the burden of going forward with the evidence and the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.”
No, it’s a “scintilla of evidence” that it was self defence, and in this trial, that evidence was introduced by the prosecution. Apart from that, self defence is not an affirmative defence in Florida, and the sole burden of proof is on the prosecution.
This, rather than the lack of a duty to retreat, seems to be the most unusual part of Florida law on this issue.
I don’t have cites to hand, but Bricker has cited this in other threads.
Is that actually even part of Stand Your Ground, then? Because based on the Florida Supreme Court’s website the self defense jury instructions date back to the 80s.
Yes! 
I believe it’s standard self defence, but you’ll need to find an actual lawyer to say for certain. This page (from an actual lawyer’s website) seems to say that.
Their page on Stand Your Ground has no mention of this standard.
Hopefully, if nothing else, these two pages will give some overview of the laws as they stand. I’ll just note that they do not refer to caselaw that has defined certain terms, such as “provocation”, which have been discussed relative to this case.
Seriously, see a mental health professional at your earliest convenience.
I think I’ve become confused by reading too much about this case, because I guess the preponderance of the evidence is primarily important in the SYG hearing. I was reading some articles about the law here in Virginia and it just appears to be summed up (from a scan of a book on the laws of Virginia) that “Self-defense in Virginia is an affirmative defense, the absence of which is not an element of murder. In making this plea a defendant implicitly admits the killing was intentional and assumes the burden of introducing evidence of justification or excuse that raises a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors.” So even here it looks like there isn’t any real standard by which you have to prove your self defense claim, it just has to be enough to raise reasonable doubt. And I guess that makes intrinsic sense, if your defense raised reasonable doubt that the crime was committed, and self-defense is a valid scenario to excuse the action as legal, then I guess it wouldn’t make any sense to require any more for an acquittal once reasonable doubt was established.