Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 277

On July 06 2013 04:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
Did O'Mara just suggest that just punching GZ in the nose was enough for GZ to shoot Trayvon?

On July 06 2013 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:

So when he said "I believe that act alone( in reference to the confrontation and the first blow) would be enough to justify the use of deadly force" He was misspeaking?

On July 06 2013 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:

So when he said "I believe that act alone( in reference to the confrontation and the first blow) would be enough to justify the use of deadly force" He was misspeaking?

On July 06 2013 04:31 Taidanii wrote:


He simply stated that it was proof that he was attacked.

In a circumstantial evidence case, a judgment of acquittal is appropriate if the state fails to present evidence from which the jury can exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. If a case is to proceed to trial where the jury can determine whether the evidence presented is sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, the trial judge must first determine there is competent evidence from which the jury could infer guilt to the exclusion of all other inferences. If there is an absence of such evidence, a judgment of acquittal is appropriate. To meet its threshold burden, the state must introduce competent evidence which is inconsistent with the defendant's theory of events.

....

However, to the description of this Headnote.the State need not conclusively rebut every possible variation of events which could be inferred from Barwick's hypothesis of innocence. Id.; State v. Allen, 335 So. 2d 823, 826 (Fla. 1976). Whether the evidence fails to exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence is for the jury to decide. Lincoln v. State, 459 So. 2d 1030, 1032 (Fla. 1984). We have held that "if there is room for a difference of opinion between reasonable people as to the proof or facts from which an ultimate fact is to be established, or where there is room for such differences on the inferences to be drawn from conceded facts, the court should submit the case to the jury." Taylor v. State, 583 So. 2d 323, 328 (Fla. 1991).

On July 06 2013 04:30 GreenHorizons wrote:

So when he said "I believe that act alone( in reference to the confrontation and the first blow) would be enough to justify the use of deadly force" He was misspeaking?

On July 06 2013 04:32 Taidanii wrote:


Under Florida state law that alone is indeed enough to warrant the use of deadly force.

On July 06 2013 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:



Outside of this case for clarity sake, are you saying according to Florida law, if one instigates a fight, then only gets punched in the face, they are now potentially legally entitled to use deadly force?

On July 06 2013 04:37 Taidanii wrote:
So, do we believe the Prosecution has indeed presented COMPETENT evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's statements (which would subsequently contradict neutral eye witness testimony)?

On July 06 2013 04:36 dAPhREAk wrote:

i dont recall him saying that. i recall him saying that fear of future bodily harm can be reasonable where the defendant has already been subjected to bodily harm.

On July 06 2013 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:



Outside of this case for clarity sake, are you saying according to Florida law, if one instigates a fight, then only gets punched in the face, they are now potentially legally entitled to use deadly force?

While the defendant may have the burden of going forward with evidence of self-defense, the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts from the State, and this standard broadly includes the requirement that the State prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. Brown v. State, 454 So. 2d 596, 598 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). If a defendant establishes a prima facie case of self-defense, the State must overcome the defense by rebuttal, or by inference in its case-in-chief. State v. Rivera, 719 So. 2d 335, 337 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (citing Sneed v. State, 580 So. 2d 169, 170 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)). If the State fails to sustain this burden of proof, the trial court is duty-bound to grant a judgment of acquittal in favor of the defendant. Id. (citing Brown, 454 So. 2d at 599). Here, the State did not present evidence sufficient to overcome Mr. Jenkins' claim of self-defense; in fact, the testimony of the State's witnesses supported that defense.

Jenkins v. State, 942 So. 2d 910, 914 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2006)

On July 06 2013 04:40 Taidanii wrote:


You are speaking about scenarios in which the person getting punched in the face was the instigator of the conflict.

These hypothetical situations are not relevant to THIS case as all evidence would indicate Trayvon is the one that instigated the conflict.

On July 06 2013 04:43 L3gendary wrote:


What evidence is that exactly?