Experts say self-defense claim could be tough to refute in Trayvon Martin [W:177]

buck · Jun 3, 2013

shrubnose said:
At the end of this trial the 'experts' will not be the ones who decide guilty or innocent.

Nope. They sure dont. Not sure why that matters though.

It's a jury trial, and jurys can be unpredictable - I thought I had already indicated that.

It doesn't mean that all experts should be ignored, though. especially as we are not in court.

mike2810 · Jun 3, 2013

I agree it will be up to the jury to decide. Who knows what they will come up with.

One of many questions I feel the prosecution must address is why would GZ shoot TM when he had already called the police and knew they were on the way.

It will be interesting to see if the State will address it.

buck · Jun 3, 2013

mike2810 said:
I agree it will be up to the jury to decide. Who knows what they will come up with.

One of many questions I feel the prosecution must address is why would GZ shoot TM when he had already called the police and knew they were on the way.

It will be interesting to see if the State will address it.

That and why let him scream for help for 40 seconds prior to shooting him, which would only bring as many witnesses (and the cops) out.

shrubnose · Jun 3, 2013

buck said:
Nope. They sure dont. Not sure why that matters though.

It's a jury trial, and jurys can be unpredictable - I thought I had already indicated that.

It doesn't mean that all experts should be ignored, though.

Correct.

But lots of 'experts' should have been, should be, and are ignored all over this planet.

buck · Jun 3, 2013

shrubnose said:
Correct.

But lots of 'experts' should have been, should be, and are ignored all over this planet.

I for one, am more than happy to listen to forensic experts, since I have no training in that field. This is, of course, assuming their opinions make sense. And the few I have heard opine on Zimmerman's case, they make sense and fit perfectly with the other evidence.

year2late · Jun 3, 2013

ecofarm said:
That's nice. Still, your opinion of Trayvon and his likely actions would change if it was proven that he was active in an organized fighting ring... right??

I don't think he's innocent, but I would go from 80% sure the shooting was justified to 99% sure if such evidence is presented.

Not really. How does it change that Zimmerman was following a minor who was walking alone on the street at night. Like I said before....I have had this happen to me and I cannot even describe how reactive I was to the situation. I was in hyperalert fighting mode until I was safely back at my dorm with three levels of security (front door to main area, lock to actual dorm area, and individual lock on dorm door.

That does not mean Zimmerman is guilty....just that following anyone walking alone down a dark street is an idiot or a criminal.

OscarB63 · Jun 3, 2013

year2late said:
That does not mean Zimmerman is guilty....just that following anyone walking alone down a dark street is an idiot or a criminal.

well...you're half right:

anyone walking alone down a dark street (in the rain) is an idiot or a criminal

so which one was Trayvon? :lamo

ecofarm · Jun 3, 2013

year2late said:
That does not mean Zimmerman is guilty....just that following anyone walking alone down a dark street is an idiot or a criminal.

False dichotomy.

year2late · Jun 3, 2013

ecofarm said:
False dichotomy.

It was a statement from personal experience. In my case, the person following me on the dark street was a criminal.

Zimmerman was an idiot to follow him. An absolute idiot. Crimimal? That is for the jury to decide. But from what I have seen (without all the evidence) he looks more like an idiot than a criminal.

ecofarm · Jun 3, 2013

year2late said:
It was a statement from personal experience. In my case, the person following me on the dark street was a criminal.

An anecdote in no way fortifies a false dichotomy.

Excon · Jun 3, 2013

Black Manta said:
4. No. The police did not instruct Z to do anything. A dispatcher made a request, no one instructed him to so anything.

The facts are in this case in Z's favor.

I would like to point out for clarification, that while the call-taker only made a suggestion to Zimmerman that they did not need him to follow, the call-taker did instruct Zimmerman to let him know if the suspicious person did anything else.

You can not do that unless you maintain surveillance on said person.

Excon · Jun 3, 2013

Fisher said:
They only have to refute Zimmerman's claims. The burden is on Zimmerman, not the state, in an affirmative defense to prove he acted in self-defense. If I were on the jury, he would have a very tough time making me believe he was not the aggressor since he clearly had time to make the telephone call to the police before the shooting.

I do not know how many affirmative defense cases you have been involved in, but the burden of "proof" is on the Prosecution.
They have to prove all elements of the crime and disprove what the defense presents.

The defense has to make a showing that it is likely he acted in self defense to generate the jury instruction. That is a lower threshold than the burden of proof which still lays with the prosecution. Which, in general, if possible, can be done through Prosecution witnesses.

Fisher · Jun 3, 2013

Excon said:
I do not know how many affirmative defense cases you have been involved in, but the burden of "proof" is on the Prosecution.
They have to prove all elements of the crime and disprove what the defense presents.

The defense has to make a showing that it is likely he acted in self defense to generate the jury instruction. That is a lower threshold than the burden of proof which still lays with the prosecution. Which, in general, if possible, can be done through Prosecution witnesses.

Enough to tell you you are wrong. The burden in self defense case is upon the defendant once the prosecution has made the case that the defendant committed the act. Affirmative defenses are burden shifting. It doesn't really matter though, because the jury will decide if they believe him and that will be that. If I were betting based on what I have heard of the case, I would put money on it either being a hung jury or a guilty. That 911 call really messes his defense up. If he hadn't made it, he would walk no problem.

OscarB63 · Jun 3, 2013

Fisher said:
Enough to tell you you are wrong. The burden in self defense case is upon the defendant once the prosecution has made the case that the defendant committed the act. Affirmative defenses are burden shifting. It doesn't really matter though, because the jury will decide if they believe him and that will be that. If I were betting based on what I have heard of the case, I would put money on it either being a hung jury or a guilty. That 911 call really messes his defense up. If he hadn't made it, he would walk no problem.

I think the 911 call helps. it goes to show that he had no intent to harm anyone. If he was really out to get trayvon...he wouldn't have called the fuzz. he'd have just tracked him down and killed him. why call 911 and advertise what you are doing?

Fisher · Jun 3, 2013

OscarB63 said:
I think the 911 call helps. it goes to show that he had no intent to harm anyone. If he was really out to get trayvon...he wouldn't have called the fuzz. he'd have just tracked him down and killed him. why call 911 and advertise what you are doing?

Really? Because it sounded to me that he was unhappy with the police response, disregarded their instructions, and pursued the kid with the intent to escalate the situation. Everything before the 911 call becomes irrelevant because he broke the string of events with an intervening action by stopping to make a 911 call and proved that Zimmerman was after Martin and disproves that Martin was after Zimmerman at that point in time. I guess time will tell how the jury sees it.

Excon · Jun 3, 2013

What if...? said:
I wouldn't be so sure about the civil.

Think OJ.

Without Zs tepeated actions there's no confro tation in the first place.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

If Zimmerman is acquitted, he can still have a SYG hearing, and based on his acquittal, most likely be given the immunity it carries.

What if...? said:
So was OJs.

Remember that civil is "more than likely" not "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Its societies way of dealing with acts that cause harm but don't rise to provably criminal.

Which kind of sucks, actually.

I think Z deserves sanction, but that it was an mostly and accident.

See above answer.
And as Zimmerman has the preponderance of evidence on his side, he wins.

Excon · Jun 3, 2013

Fisher said:
Enough to tell you you are wrong. The burden in self defense case is upon the defendant once the prosecution has made the case that the defendant committed the act. Affirmative defenses are burden shifting. It doesn't really matter though, because the jury will decide if they believe him and that will be that. If I were betting based on what I have heard of the case, I would put money on it either being a hung jury or a guilty. That 911 call really messes his defense up. If he hadn't made it, he would walk no problem.

:naughty
Obviously none, as you are the one who is misstating the requirements.

Your understanding seems to be inadequate for a professed attorney.

Excon said:

Zimmerman only has to make a showing.

The Prosecutors burden is to prove he did not act in self-defense.

Even O'Mara has said as much in his interviews.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense.

Presenting an affirmative defense offers no relief to the government in what they
must prove. Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977). Rather, if the defense
generates an affirmative defense, the government must then disprove the defense
generally beyond a reasonable doubt. Mullaney, 421 U.S. at 704; U.S. v. Jackson,
569 F.2d 1003, 1008 n.12 (7th Cir. 1978)(emphasis added).

Pay attention this time as you obviously didn't before.
From what I previously provided, specifically speaking about the burdens.
(I formatted it differently so maybe you could understand it this time.)

UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Code:

[B][COLOR="#000000"]UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES[/COLOR][/B][SIZE=1]

[...]

[/SIZE][B][COLOR="#000000"]D. Burdens[/COLOR][/B]
The term “affirmative defense” seems inextricably tied to arguments about burden shifting.
Three different burdens exist; 
[INDENT][COLOR="#0000ff"][U][COLOR="#000000"][B]burden of proof[/B] (always on the government),[/COLOR][/U][/COLOR]
[B][COLOR="#000000"]burden of production[/COLOR][/B] (normally on the defense),and 
[B][COLOR="#000000"]burden of persuasion[/COLOR][/B] (normally back on the government).[/INDENT]
The burden of proof to prove the essential elements of the crime charged BRD starts with
and[highlight] [COLOR="#000000"]ALWAYS stays with the Government[/COLOR][/highlight].
The burden of production to generate an affirmative defense is on the defense.
This is constitutional because the defense is not negating an essential element of the crime charged.
The standard, meaning the quantum of evidence needed, varies with the particular affirmative defense.
Generally it is either by a preponderance, or by clear and convincing. Once the defense has met this burden
of producing an affirmative defense,[COLOR="#0000ff"][U] [COLOR="#000000"]the Government has the additional [B]burden[/B][/COLOR][/U][/COLOR] of persuading the jury
not just as to each element of the crime BRD, but also to persuade the jury to reject the affirmative defense BRD as well.

[INDENT]I[COLOR="#000000"][B]. Burden of Proof[/B][/COLOR]
Presenting an affirmative defense offers no relief to the government in what they
must prove. Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977). Rather, if the defense
generates an affirmative defense, [COLOR="#ff0000"][U][highlight][COLOR="#000000"]the government must then disprove the defense
generally beyond a reasonable doubt[/COLOR][/highlight][/U][/COLOR]. Mullaney, 421 U.S. at 704; U.S. v. Jackson,
569 F.2d 1003, 1008 n.12 (7th Cir. 1978)(emphasis added).[/INDENT][SIZE=1]


[...]

[B]Google Doc[/B]
[url]https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:06-_HilumfEJ:www.fd.org/pdf_lib/beneman_affirmative_defenses_materials.pdf+affirmative+defense&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjQQ9DDIG6I9rtWnkdrvG4XMpf-h2KGVxjIf2cgCnXgnZ6rKrFrnVZwDO3Pw-YkvR4VQt6w8d4k7Jd6u3XiNVni3HwMVJaz2xJgZswMP-HkNfqJhwe5jZwla03YrbDJEf3LwZ9D&sig=AHIEtbQjGQcnos5_jKrclWonXfetxH8Zuw[/url]

[B]Straight Pdf[/B]
[url=http://avenue-s.us/resources/beneman_affirmative_defenses_materials.pdf]UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES[/url][/SIZE]

Excon · Jun 3, 2013

sharon said:
He should answer why he didn't wait for the police... and why he didn't identify himself. He botched it up and then killed an unarmed teen.

Why are you spinning the truth?
You know darn well that your so-called unarmed teen is reported to have sucker punched him, was slamming his head into the ground and then going for Zimmerman's gun with the stated intent to murder him.
That isn't botching anything up, but is defending yourself.

It truly is sad that Traybots go to great lengths to twist the known evidence all in an effort to paint an innocent man guilty.

sharon said:
Maggie.. In George's first story he already had his cellphone out.

And this was already explained to you.
It is not an inconsistancy that matters.

The same underlying premiss is still there. He grabbed for his cell phone, was unable to make the call and ™ hit him.

It was even shown to you what Serino said. Some inconsistencies that do not amount to much.

But for some reason you can't accept that either.

sharon said:
He didn't have to get out of his truck to tell the police that........

Doesn't matter one bit.

sharon said:
George is playing his fans with lame lies..

No sharon he isn't. But I can not say the same for you.

sharon said:
Don't you see it? Look at how he is grinning on Hannity.

No sharon, folks who live in reality do not se what you see.

sharon said:
DS: I still don’t understand, when he walked up to your car, why didn’t you say anything to him?
GZ: I guess fear. I didn’t want to confront him. He seemed…
DS: You were afraid of him?
GZ: Yes, ma’am.

DS: You didn’t think he had a weapon?
GZ: No, no. I didn’t….
DS: You thought he was just trying to bluff you.
GZ: Yes, ma’am.
CS: Hey, did that scare you? The bluff?
GZ: No.

Just like for ™.
People can be scared at one moment and not scared the next.
You have no point.

sharon said:
If Trayvon attacked George... George could have identified himself as NW.

There is no evidence that indicates that would have stopped ™'s attack.
But you already know that.

sharon said:
George agreed NOT to follow Trayvon and then did.

Sharon. There is no evidence of that.

sharon said:
George could have returned to his truck in 30 seconds.. He was nowhere near his truck. He was 47 feet south on the dogwalk.

There you go again with the false claim of 47 feet.
And his being south of the dog walk is where the encounter ended, not started.
It started at the T, where he was heading back to his vehicle. That is the evidence. Deal with it.

sharon said:
George tells the NEN dispatch that TM has his hands at his waist.. to make Trayvon appear more sinister....... George lies like a six year old.

There you go assuming again.
What makes sense is that he told the call-taker what he was seeing.

sharon said:
There is NO evidence that Trayvon attacked George... and George's injuries are minor.

Wrong as usual, on both accounts.

sharon said:
George had time enough to say.. "This is a mistake.. I am with NW and I didn't recognize you as a resident"...

1.) Why would he say that when he wasn't on watch?
2.) He wouldn't say that as ™ was a visitor and not a resident.

sharon said:
George was on a mission.. mindless. There is no excuse for him killing Trayvon.

Assumptions not in accordance with the evidence.

sharon said:
Trayvon wore his cellphone clipped to the waistband of his jeans.

You do not know that.

sharon said:
Trayvon thought the threat was over.. He didn't know George had gotten out of his truck.

So he wasn't really hiding cause he didn't know.
Then there must be a reason that he came from that direction.
That could only be that he was really casing homes, as there would be no other reason for him to be up close and personal with a home like that.

sharon said:
Do you think that when teens participate in a contest that they are out to injure their opponents?

When they play the knock out game they surely are.

sharon said:
I think George is a liar..

We know sharon. You keep stating this unsupportable position, over and over again.
Coming from you it is ironic.

sharon said:
The injuries are just not consistent with a savage beating.

:doh
The injuries are consistent with his account.
And the circumstances in which he received those injuries is sufficient to establish he acted out in self-defense.

sharon said:
The tiny lacerations are pretty high on his head.

No they are not sharon.
That is exactly the area the head would impact the ground.

sharon said:
George is approaching 400 pounds and doesn't want to appear in public.

I don't think TM started the fight.. I think that he asked George why are you following me.. and when he didn't get an answer he turned to walk away in disgust.

You are presuming too much.

™ approached yelling.
That is not simply walking up to Zimmerman to ask question.
He was angry in his approach, in his question and when he arrived upon Zimmerman, struck him. That is the evidence that you are not dealing with.

sharon said:
Well.. Trayvon had no history of sudden rage or violence..

You do not know that sharon.

sharon said:
Use your head.. boxing is not "street violence"...... its a contest.

So is the knock-out game.

sharon said:
Yep.. shouldn't have happened.

All for a lack of communication or following the NW rules.

Nope. All for ™ acting out violently.

sharon said:
In fact he was the ONLY NW volunteer..

I have already and recently proved your comments about this to be lies. Showing that you knew all the way back last year that there were others.

sharon said:
So let them testify to cleaning George up with a peroxide swab.

Your point is ridiculous as they said they had to work a while to clean him up.

sharon said:
George seems to have wiggled and shimmied 47 feet with Trayvon on top of him

It wasn't 47 feet sharon. You already know that.

sharon said:
You mean that he slipped and fell in wet grass?

No sharon. When he was attacked, sucker-punched in the nose and fell because of it.

sharon said:
No on is talking to the media except the defense.

Wrong sharon. Crump has been out there spreading the lies so the Prosecutor didn't have to do it.

Excon · Jun 3, 2013

mak2 said:
Yep, exactly. and soaked in Ivory.

Which would indicate it wasn't a fight, but an attack.

year2late said:
Doesn't stop the fact that Zimmerman should have watched Trayvon from the safety of his car and he clearly should not have followed someone who was walking alone in the dark.

What you say is not a fact as you assert, but an assumption that has no bearing on this case. Zimmerman's actions were legal.
Not only that but he was instructed to let the call-taker know if the suspicious person did anything else.

You can not do that without maintaining surveillance.

braymoore said:
Way to many lies being told

The evidence is the evidence.
So far there is no indication that Zimmerman is lying.
So apparently you are making assumptions. Unsupportable ones at that.

braymoore said:
But I think of it like this. GZ had a gun and was NW, okay.

No it is not OK as he was not on duty that night but heading to the store.

braymoore said:
But we know that he confronts him and such and they start a heated discussion and things lead to another and TM being a normal teenager gets upset about whatever GZ was saying to him and takes a swing or something.

And no we do not know that.
That is not in accordance with the evidence.

I think i am starting to see these lies you are were talking about.

braymoore said:
GZ tries to stop him from hitting and punching him but he just continues to do so. Now unless TM pulled a weapon and threatened GZ with this weapon, that would never give GZ the right to pull out his weapon and open fire on the kid.

OMG! You clearly have no clue as to what the evidence is.
It does not support anything you have said.

Unitedwestand13 said:
Is there any DNA evidence showing that trayvon actually hit Zimmerman?

Why would there be?

shrubnose said:
At the end of this trial the 'experts' will not be the ones who decide guilty or innocent.

Yes and we already know that Crump has been out there tainting the jury pool with his lies.

We already know that part of team Crump has been advocating lying to potential jurors just s they can be seated on the jury.

The trial should be move to a city where the racial tensions are greatly diminished

Fisher · Jun 3, 2013

Excon said:
:naughty
Obviously none, as you are the one who is misstating the requirements.

Your understanding seems to be inadequate for a professed attorney.

Keep dreaming that is how it works.

Excon · Jun 3, 2013

Fisher said:
Keep dreaming that is how it works.

I do not have to dream as I know that is how it works.
You obviously don't know that?

But look, really, your beef shouldn't be with me. It should be with the authors and publishers.
And with those who teach criminal law.
Because you are clearly wrong.

Fisher · Jun 3, 2013

Excon said:
I do not have to dream as I know that is how it works.
You obviously don't know that?

But look, really, your beef shouldn't be with me. It should be with the authors and publishers.
And with those who teach criminal law.
Because you are clearly wrong.

Here is a lawyer from FL that explains it for you quite well. The burden stays on the defendant just to get the instruction Florida Law on Self-Defense : Use of Deadly and Non Deadly Force

Excon · Jun 3, 2013

Fisher said:
Here is a lawyer from FL that explains it for you quite well. The burden stays on the defendant just to get the instruction Florida Law on Self-Defense : Use of Deadly and Non Deadly Force

I do not even have to read it to know it says exactly what I stated, as I have previously read that entry.

Do you know who is the (cough) authoritative author behind that entry? Some paralegal or clerk?

The burden of production of evidence to get the jury instruction, a showing, is not a burden of Proof.
Sorry you don't know that, the difference or the finer points of affirmative defense.

Experts say self-defense claim could be tough to refute in Trayvon Martin [W:177]

buck

mike2810

buck

shrubnose

buck

year2late

IIJAFM

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators

ecofarm

global liberation

year2late

IIJAFM

ecofarm

global liberation

Excon

Excon

Fisher

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators

Fisher

Excon

Excon

Excon

Excon

Fisher

Excon

Fisher

Excon