|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On July 02 2013 02:54 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:49 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 02:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 02:30 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 02:21 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 02:16 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 02:08 Kaitlin wrote:
I just heard HLN discussing the upcoming testimony of the lead detective who said he was pressured into a murder 2 charge, even though he felt they didn't have evidence sufficient for such a charge. The dumb blonde bitch mentioned that it could be used to entice a plea to manslaughter. That's fucking illegal as hell to threaten prosecution for a charge not supported by evidence. Unbelievable. I know it happens all the time, but it's one of the things entirely fucked up about how prosecutors operate. First degree, second degree murder and manslaughter are all degrees of similar crimes. If you kill someone and it can't be proven that it is self defense or an accident(with no negligence on your part), you can be charged with one of those three crimes. His self defense claim is really questionable, since he can't prove he didn't instigate the event by following Treyvon. Even in Florida. Florida puts the burden on the prosecutor even for self defense. Zimmerman doesnt have to prove anything. With self defense, Zimmerman has to prove he didn't instigate the event as well. The law does not allow people to pick fights and then shoot people in response. He also has to show that he had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, which also might be a challenge to prove. The "reasonable" threshold is the hardest part to avoid, since the jury get a lot of room to decide what is "reasonable". he doesnt have to prove jackshit. With all do respect dAPhREAk, I work in the legal field and self defense always has to be proven, even in this case. It may be easier in Florida, but when you shoot someone, you need to prove you had good cause to do so. The Florida law only removed the requirement to attempt to flee(or that all routes of flight be removed) before using deadly force. You still need to meet all the other burdens of self defense. Also, if can be proven that Zimmerman instigated or could have avoided the event by following Trevyon after he was instructed not to do so by the police, self defense could be hard to sell a jury on. Even then, great bodily harm and death means that the jury must believe that Zimmerman would have been crippled or injured for life(which is the threshold for great bodily harm). Getting beat up or punched a few times does not normally justify the use of deadly force. i'd be careful before you wave your legal penis around. there are three lawyers in this thread at least, and two of them are saying you are wrong. the burden is on the state. Show nested quote +We agree with this analysis. When a defendant claims self-defense, the State maintains the burden of proving the defendant committed the crime and did not act in self-defense.See id.; Mosansky v. State, 33 So.3d 756, 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). The burden never shifts to the defendant to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, he must simply present enough evidence to support giving the instruction. http://lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/montijo-v-state-61-so-3d-424-fl-ct-app-2011/
All right, I stand corrected and I will always take the word of counsel over my own opinion. I always felt the Zimmerman's claim of self defense was questionable since he followed Trayvon and the physical conflict didn't seem to rise to the level that required deadly force. But if two attorneys feel that self defense is iron clad, I will take their word for it.
On July 02 2013 02:59 dAPhREAk wrote:
actually, there may only be two lawyers in this thread because it appears plansix only works in the legal field, not that he is an actual lawyer like xDaunt and myself.
You are correct, I am a paralegal that specialize in legal research in the Boston area. The last thing this place needs is more attorneys.
|
On July 02 2013 02:59 dAPhREAk wrote:
actually, there may only be two lawyers in this thread because it appears plansix only works in the legal field, not that he is an actual lawyer like xDaunt and myself.
Easy tiger, you won already.
Is anyone else reading this full transcript? I know I've talked about it already, but how does Z not remember if T came from front or back? It would seem like normal human spacial awareness would dictate that you'd remember when you noticed a threat... it seems unlikely that all of a sudden someone would magically be right in front of you. It really does seem that Z was following T in a pseudo-military manner. Why hasn't the prosecution mentioned Z's fascination with military, law enforcement, and violence? In terms of framing a particular behavior profile, it would seem to be important.
|
On July 02 2013 03:05 Crownlol wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:59 dAPhREAk wrote:
actually, there may only be two lawyers in this thread because it appears plansix only works in the legal field, not that he is an actual lawyer like xDaunt and myself. Easy tiger, you won already. Is anyone else reading this full transcript? I know I've talked about it already, but how does Z not remember if T came from front or back? It would seem like normal human spacial awareness would dictate that you'd remember when you noticed a threat... it seems unlikely that all of a sudden someone would magically be right in front of you. It really does seem that Z was following T in a pseudo-military manner. Why hasn't the prosecution mentioned Z's fascination with military, law enforcement, and violence? In terms of framing a particular behavior profile, it would seem to be important.
Add it to the growing list of suspicious statements from GZ that don't seem to pass the smell test.
|
"most people dont tell you the same story twice."
"no significant differences in statements."
|
On July 02 2013 03:05 Crownlol wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:59 dAPhREAk wrote:
actually, there may only be two lawyers in this thread because it appears plansix only works in the legal field, not that he is an actual lawyer like xDaunt and myself. Easy tiger, you won already. Is anyone else reading this full transcript? I know I've talked about it already, but how does Z not remember if T came from front or back? It would seem like normal human spacial awareness would dictate that you'd remember when you noticed a threat... it seems unlikely that all of a sudden someone would magically be right in front of you. It really does seem that Z was following T in a pseudo-military manner. Why hasn't the prosecution mentioned Z's fascination with military, law enforcement, and violence? In terms of framing a particular behavior profile, it would seem to be important.
Getting jumped from the front or behind is too granular a detail that simply says the same thing. By being unsure which direction he was jumped, but insisting that he did, he can't be "disproved" by directional evidence since he "didn't really remember" anyway.
If he was saying "I can't recall if I was ambushed or if we simply talked things out" then he'd be forced to be more specific.
|
On July 02 2013 03:03 Plansix wrote:
All right, I stand corrected and I will always take the word of counsel over my own opinion. I always felt the Zimmerman's claim of self defense was questionable since he followed Trayvon and the physical conflict didn't seem to rise to the level that required deadly force. But if two attorneys feel that self defense is iron clad, I will take their word for it.
You'll want to look for a recap of the Physician-Assistant's testimony, especially on cross. Zimmerman's wounds were consistent with his head being slammed on concrete, even though there wasn't as much blood as you'd expect (Zimmerman's head appeared "contused" and swollen in many areas, but without broken skin). She also testifies that further receiving the same trauma could have led to serious injury or death (though it was quite speculative). That goes a long way towards the necessity requirements for deadly force.
|
why is this lady on the stand for the prosecutor? she seems so good for defense.
|
This officer clearly hasn't read my breakdown of the inconsistencies and why they are important >.<
|
You guys need to quit getting so hung up on the Zimmerman was following Trayvon thing. It really isn't all that important. What really matters is 1) who instigated the altercation, and 2) how dangerous the situation was from Zimmerman's point of view once the altercation started. Again, go read the jury instruction. Even if Zimmerman started the fight, he still can get off on self-defense, albeit the standard for self-defense is harder for him.
|
On July 02 2013 03:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
This officer clearly hasn't read my breakdown of the inconsistencies and why they are important >.<
That's not her job. That's the DA's job. They also aren't that important for the reasons previously stated.
|
On July 02 2013 03:11 FatChicksUnited wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 03:03 Plansix wrote:
All right, I stand corrected and I will always take the word of counsel over my own opinion. I always felt the Zimmerman's claim of self defense was questionable since he followed Trayvon and the physical conflict didn't seem to rise to the level that required deadly force. But if two attorneys feel that self defense is iron clad, I will take their word for it.
You'll want to look for a recap of the Physician-Assistant's testimony, especially on cross. Zimmerman's wounds were consistent with his head being slammed on concrete, even though there wasn't as much blood as you'd expect (Zimmerman's head appeared "contused" and swollen in many areas, but without broken skin). She also testifies that further receiving the same trauma could have led to serious injury or death (though it was quite speculative). That goes a long way towards the necessity requirements for deadly force.
I will have to do that, since it does seem to be the sticking point of a lot of this. I would make the argument any physical confrontation has the potential to lead to lethal injury, but that does not mean it is reasonable to think it is going to happen. Still the whole encounter between the two seems very up in the air and we don't have an accurate account how it took place.
|
The DA is really struggling to make something out of nothing here.
|
On July 02 2013 03:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 03:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
This officer clearly hasn't read my breakdown of the inconsistencies and why they are important >.< That's not her job. That's the DA's job. They also aren't that important for the reasons previously stated.
edit: you realize that was a joke right?:: Sounds like the prosecution plans on proving otherwise
|
It would probably be hard to get a doctors/medical expert to say something else than that head injuries have the potential to lead to serious injury.
|
On July 02 2013 03:24 nihlon wrote:
It would probably be hard to get a doctors/medical expert to say something else than that head injuries have the potential to lead to serious injury.
Right on. What most of the internet defense analysts miss is that people are often killed or permanently crippled by a *single* punch or blow to the head, or even the fall from a nasty push (subdural hematoma).
Don't mess with the brain.
|
DA yelling at his own witness again. must have been some damaging testimony. lol.
what a shitty DA.
|
I can't watch the trial live. Has the prosecution been able to dig up anything that might indicate Zimmerman started the altercation (other than that Zimmerman may have followed him)?
|
On July 02 2013 03:27 dAPhREAk wrote:
DA yelling at his own witness again. must have been some damaging testimony. lol.
what a shitty DA.
I've done a lot of defending the DA and his performance so far. However, there have been far too many instances where he has lost control of his witnesses during the defense's cross and then been forced into a stupidly reactive position. He needs to be better at getting ahead of the State's weaknesses in the testimony (which are numerous).
|
On July 02 2013 03:27 dAPhREAk wrote:
DA yelling at his own witness again. must have been some damaging testimony. lol.
what a shitty DA.
Is it the only witness they can call to get the evidence they need? I've been down that road of coaching an idiot to testify in a reasonable manner and its not fun.
|
On July 02 2013 03:32 Defacer wrote:
I can't watch the trial live. Has the prosecution been able to dig up anything that might indicate Zimmerman started the altercation (other than that Zimmerman may have followed him)?
No.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
