Actually, all he has to do is present initial evidence of self-defense, which can be his own testimony. Once he has done that, the prosecution must disprove it:
From Fowler v. State, 921 So.2d 708 (FL DCA 2nd Dist 2006).
Right?
A gash on the head, a broken nose, testimony of the eyewitness that Martin was sitting on Zimmerman and beating him, and Zimmerman screaming for help. And sure, a chubby 5’something guy can just so easily overpower a 6’3" football player.
Of course. But if we could get Martin’s statement, it would ruin any chance of convicting Zimmerman for murder.
The eyewitness says Martin was sitting on him and beating him up while Zimmerman is screaming for help. Kinda hard to escape.
Well, that would be a terrible shame then. Yes, this outcome is preferable to the one in which Martin is home safe and eating skittles.
The child (a 6’3" football player) was sitting on him beating him up, with a bloody gash to the back of Zimmerman’s head and broken nose - while Zimmerman was screaming for help.
Touche’
Interesting thing I just noticed in the law
The self defense law talks about defense against “unlawful force”. If Martin’s use of force was itself self defense, and thus lawful, then doesn’t that mean Zimmerman’s use of force does not qualify as self defense under the law?
What’s your point?
It seem to be you’re making an Appeal to Emoption – “agree with me, because Martin’s death is a tragedy!”
But what point are you asking me to agree to? I said: “Boy, it sure would help if we had Zimmerman’s statement, huh?” My point was that absent his statement, we lack the factual record to make any sort of informed decision on what happened.
You responded, “Boy, it sure would help if we had Martin’s statement, huh?” Knowing that Martin is dead, you can’t possibly have meant this literally. So it seems to me that your comment was intended to substitute revulsion for the tragedy for analysis of the events that led to it.
Correct?
My point with that comment was to counter your snark regarding the presence of a statement from Zimmerman. Of course people realize that there’s a statement from Zimmerman. Most people here recognize that it is of dubious value.
My broader point is that all the “analysis” of this incident is bullshit. Everyone can see exactly what happened here. The only motive for pretending otherwise is a desire to protect the right of paranoid nutjobs to carry around firearms in the hopes that someone will make their day so that they can stand their ground.
I recommend that people check out the movie “Super” with Rainn Wilson. It considers the vigilante superhero story from a perspective that strips away much of the fantasy.
given your legal background you should be aware of how much license police have in pursuing a case. What is a lie to you would swear out quite easily in court. IMO, as a member of the Walter Mitty internet police force, Zimmerman was acting irrationally when he pursued Martin and therefore should be tested. I’m assuming that Zimmerman was acting as I described (given the situation) which adds to the whole ambiance of behavior.
Conversation to judge: Zimmerman was acting in the capacity of a neighborhood watch. He was armed. He told us in advance that he thought the kid was possibly armed and high or otherwise messed up. We didn’t know at the time he (Zimmerman) was armed but per standard procedure he was told/asked/alerted not to pursue the subject. He ignored what should have been his own common sense and pursued the subject on foot. At some point the pursuit takes him into the back/side yard of a house (subject tries to get away from Zimmerman). A fight breaks out where Zimmerman feels it necessary to defend himself and the victim is shot dead. Upon our arrival Zimmerman is observed to be jittery, sweating profusely and rambling. We believe that based on his original 911 call that he irrationally pursued someone he deemed a dangerous criminal to the point a confrontation ensued.
The basis of my entire argument was that Zimmerman provoked Martin by his irrational pursuit of him and this contributed to Martin’s death. I would expect a police department to see the fallout of a poorly executed investigation and would have exercised caution on their own behalf by gathering as much forensic information as possible.
No.
Of course the police could have said that, regardless of whether it was true or not, and have been believed.
But you cannot be saying that the police acted incompetently by refusing to lie, can you??
So if the the police didn’t do that, and he was in fact jittery, sweating profusely and rambling, I agree they were incompetent.
But if he was NOT jittery, sweating profusely and rambling, then I don’t agree the police should have sworn he was anyway in order to get a blood test.
So: the only way the police are incompetent on this issue is if Zimmerman was jittery, sweating profusely and rambling.
Was he?
In Fowler v. State, 492 So.2d 1344, 1352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986),[1] the First District reversed a murder conviction because “the defendant’s hypothesis that the shooting was purely accidental and in self-defense has not been overcome.” As in the present case, no eyewitnesses saw the shooting or the events preceding it, and the defendant fled after the shooting. In fact, in Fowler, the defendant fled the jurisdiction. In discussing whether the State met its burden to withstand a motion for judgment of acquittal, the court stated, “Evidence that leaves room for two or more inferences of fact, at least one of which is consistent with the defendant’s hypothesis of innocence, is not legally sufficient to make a case for the jury.”
(Quoting Fowler v. State, 921 So. 2d 708 (FL DCA 2nd 2006).
Apparently Florida is beset with self-defense killers named Fowler.
Yes, right. And to make out a prima facie case of self defense, he would have to address the kinds of questions I listed, reasonableness being an element of the defense. Right? There has to be evidence from which a jury can conclude that Zimmerman reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm etc. etc.
I assume you agree it doesn’t amount to a prima facie case of self defense if he says what Terr initially said.
I disagree. I think it’s very dangerous to start an analysis of a crime with, “Everyone knows what happened here.”
Magiver is doing the same thing. He doesn’t want to come right out and say it, but he’s telling me that in order to get a blood test warrant, the cops should have said that Zimmerman was jittery or that his statement was disorganized, even if it wasn’t. Because, after all, everyone knows what happens in situations like that.
I don’t think that’s the way to do things. I believe we all serve ourselves better by reaching judgments based on facts, not suppositions.
When the Duke lacrosse players were accused of rape, “everyone knew what happened,” too. Only it didn’t, did it?
I’ll be honest Skittles show bad taste, although I think the Skittles were for Martin’s little brother…at least I hope.
I can’t understand how you’d pick Skittles over say, M&M’s (especially peanut) or even Reese’s Pieces.
The “everyone knows I’m right argument.” Winning message board debates, and most importantly, criminal trials since 1789.
By the way, I misread earlier and thought you were complaining about the fact we have not seen Zimmerman’s statement yet–the point of my response was that releasing his statement to the public could jeopardize the legal case against him. Obviously since you were talking about “Martin’s statement” my response makes no sense in that context.
Well, I’m not sure he can’t.
Here are the questions you posed to Terr, with my comments:
Why was it reasonable for him to believe he was in imminent danger such that he had exhausted every other reasonable means of escape?
He doesn’t have to show that he had exhausted every reasonable means of escape if he did not initiate the physical altercation.
- What amount of force did the child he shot to death put him in imminent fear of, and how?*
There is at least one report that his nose was broken, and since it comes from Zimmerman’s lawyer, it seems fair to proceed on the assumption that Zimmerman is saying it.
Why was the amount of force necessary a lethal amount of force?
As a matter of law, in Florida, a broken nose is a serious bodily injury ( See Owens v. State, 289 So. 2d 472 (FL DCA 2nd Dist 1974), and supports the use of deadly force (See FSA § 776.013)
- In what particular way did the child foil Zimmerman’s legally-required attempt to withdraw from the situation?*
Assuming facts not in evidence – how did you establish that Zimmerman had a legal duty to retreat?
We know he pursued Martin against common sense. After that it’s one person’s opinion that someone who just acted irrationally is… acting irrationally. I can pick an unlimited number of behavioral attributes to attach to Zimmerman.
you keep arguing like this is some kind of law 101 class. In the real world Zimmerman would have had a microscope shoved up his ass if Martin was the son of Ted Kennedy. It’s the same real world where a repeated drunk driver gets away with a negligent traffic death.
In the real world the death of an innocent black teenager shot by an armed neighborhood watch captain reeks of vigilantism and is going to open up a huge can of worms. That’s the real world Bricker. And in that world, the police have the license to pursue an investigation to the fullest extent of that license.
There will always be a difference in what lengths police will go to investigate a dead drug dealer shot in front of 50 deaf/dumb/blind witnesses and the death of a politician’s child.