General Discussion

Adsos Letter

(19,459 posts)

24. That's how I see it. I don't think the defense is really trying to prove Zimmerman's actions

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 01:34 PM

Jun 2013

I don't think the defense is really trying to prove Zimmerman's actions were correct and lawful under Florida law, only that there is reasonable doubt as to what the facts show about what took place before Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin. Nobody contests that Z shot TM.

The burden is on the prosecution to show that Z acted illegally when he shot TM, and I think that is dependent, according to Florida law, on what occurred between the time Z became aware of TM's presence in the housing development, and the instant the shot was actually fired.

I think all the defense has to do is to demonstrate that the known facts do not allow a reasonable person to reach a conclusion about that that is beyond a reasonable doubt.

I could be wrong, and this post may prove it so. You can be sure that if I am wrong someone will be along to set me straight on the matter.

EDIT: ...my ongoing struggle with execrable grammar and sentence structure continues apace...

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

112 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

But Who STARTED The Altercation Between Martin and Zimmerman? [View all] Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 OP

Zimmerman, when he got out of his car. Possibly when he was stalking Martin from his car. nt rrneck Jun 2013 #1

I Agree, but..... Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #3

I really haven't followed it all that closely rrneck Jun 2013 #7

But Since it's an Affirmative Defense for Self Defense and not Stand Your Ground... Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #10

"Zimmerman HAS TO PROVE it was self defense" B2G Jun 2013 #14

Then I'm misunderstanding the burden of proof here... Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #15

To prove 2nd degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt B2G Jun 2013 #20

no, the defense has to prove self-defense TorchTheWitch Jun 2013 #49

I would love to see a link that supports that. B2G Jun 2013 #58

there's plenty of them in threads right here TorchTheWitch Jun 2013 #75

There is subtle nuance at play here Kennah Jun 2013 #79

I'm fairly certain the term Jenoch Jun 2013 #82

This post was helpful to me. dkf Jun 2013 #108

Is there a reasonable doubt about who killed Martin? Is there a reasonable doubt that he would Threedifferentones Jun 2013 #88

Well, naaman fletcher Jun 2013 #89

lol. this is the kind of stupid shit white folks are willing Solomon Jun 2013 #92

What do you mean? naaman fletcher Jun 2013 #93

So Zimmerman's story is: Threedifferentones Jun 2013 #95

Nope naaman fletcher Jun 2013 #98

in Rachel's testimony from her phone call, Voice for Peace Jun 2013 #103

I thought he used Jenoch Jun 2013 #109

I agree that's what he says he was doing pokerfan Jun 2013 #104

If are judicial system was built on guilty until proved innocent. joeglow3 Jun 2013 #33

It is the prosecution Jenoch Jun 2013 #83

Not true. Once the state proves or he conceiveds he killed someone... Deep13 Jun 2013 #105

This post helped me... dkf Jun 2013 #107

even if Trayvon threw the first punch, there is little evidence to justify the use of the gun. Voice for Peace Jun 2013 #26

I think you are totally wrong on that. naaman fletcher Jun 2013 #90

By the extent of his injuries, and the testimony of people who saw Zimmerman on top Voice for Peace Jun 2013 #100

Does it have to be a punch? What if Zimmerman grabbed Martin to keep him from walking away? arcane1 Jun 2013 #56

I think so....any physical contact....My God, why didn't that idiot just identify himself! Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #62

I think because he was hunting a black man. That's the opinion I get of Zimmerman. Maraya1969 Jun 2013 #73

Agreed. Zimmerman began following Martin, armed, in a threatening manner... HooptieWagon Jun 2013 #46

Kick! hedgehog Jun 2013 #2

I don't know what that means. Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #4

A reply bumps a thread up to the top of the page again. That's called a "Kick". Recursion Jun 2013 #6

Oh, ok!!! Well tyvm!!!! Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #8

Nobody saw. That's a problem for the prosecution. Recursion Jun 2013 #5

It is actually a much bigger problem for the defense Bjorn Against Jun 2013 #38

And a preponderance of the evidence just means "it's more likely I'm telling the truth than lying" Recursion Jun 2013 #39

When he was the one who initiated the conflict Bjorn Against Jun 2013 #42

We don't know who initiated the conflict Recursion Jun 2013 #43

We KNOW Zimmerman initiated the conflict Bjorn Against Jun 2013 #44

"Who touched who" is who initiated the conflict. Z had a right to do what he did up until the moment Recursion Jun 2013 #45

No. He had no legal right to follow Martin. HooptieWagon Jun 2013 #47

Yes, he did. He had every right to be on that sidewalk too, even though he's a douchebag Recursion Jun 2013 #48

Yes, but he cannot stalk... HooptieWagon Jun 2013 #51

Interesting legal theory Recursion Jun 2013 #52

My conclusion as well. And there are lots of them, and just about everyone is a gun lover. Hoyt Jun 2013 #102

doubtful TorchTheWitch Jun 2013 #59

Thanks.....I really have no idea which way that will go so far.... Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #61

From my point of view the altercation began long before the first punch etherealtruth Jun 2013 #9

I agree. But that doesn't seem to be the legal view. It seems to be the fist fight. Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #11

How does that work? joeglow3 Jun 2013 #34

But that is not what happened in this case Bjorn Against Jun 2013 #40

Of course it would need to be proven (or admitted) that the person was STALKING him etherealtruth Jun 2013 #53

There is a specific defintion of stalking and it is not as you think it is. It is also not Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #66

Of course it as a specific legal meaning etherealtruth Jun 2013 #69

Then the law does apply joeglow3 Jun 2013 #70

What in the world are you babbling about? etherealtruth Jun 2013 #71

Nice change of tactic. joeglow3 Jun 2013 #97

This is a change of tactic etherealtruth Jun 2013 #106

Double down, huh? joeglow3 Jun 2013 #110

No, not at all etherealtruth Jun 2013 #111

I read through much of it joeglow3 Jun 2013 #112

I agree. HooptieWagon Jun 2013 #50

I get the impression that the defense is aiming for "reasonable doubt" Adsos Letter Jun 2013 #12

So they are just trying to muddy the water....or show that the water is unfailingly muddied. Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #17

That's how I see it. I don't think the defense is really trying to prove Zimmerman's actions Adsos Letter Jun 2013 #24

The defense doesn't have to try to muddy the waters. adric mutelovic Jun 2013 #67

Z claims TM caught him by surprise and clocked him first magellan Jun 2013 #13

I don't think a defendant's word alone can be accepted as proof without additional evidence/backup. Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #19

I agree magellan Jun 2013 #21

What? Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #30

What other way would u have it? joeglow3 Jun 2013 #35

If the jury is swayed to believe he was possibly in fear for his life, yes magellan Jun 2013 #36

Was Z's blood on the gun? Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #57

I think it was. n/t magellan Jun 2013 #76

This message was self-deleted by its author magellan Jun 2013 #76

This message was self-deleted by its author magellan Jun 2013 #21

Z hasn't claimed anything yet under oath. WinkyDink Jun 2013 #25

I don't think the jury will buy a self-defense defense. It just isn't clean enough. Voice for Peace Jun 2013 #27

"She may have come across in many ways, but not as a liar." Jenoch Jun 2013 #84

I think that's going to be a problem YarnAddict Jun 2013 #87

did you think she was lying about her conversation with Trayvon? Voice for Peace Jun 2013 #99

I didn't see that testimony. Jenoch Jun 2013 #101

Zimmerman, when he got out of his car and ignored dispatcher. grasswire Jun 2013 #16

This is not what Zimmerman maintains. HiddenAgenda63 Jun 2013 #31

18 seconds after he got out of the car he agreed with the operator csziggy Jun 2013 #68

THat's my problem with this MNBrewer Jun 2013 #18

That's a blind spot in the case. nyquil_man Jun 2013 #23

and what the medical examiner will tell us Voice for Peace Jun 2013 #28

Indeed. nt nyquil_man Jun 2013 #54

How important is knowing the initiator in terms of reasonable doubt? HiddenAgenda63 Jun 2013 #29

I thought being the initiator eliminated self defense. Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #32

Your analogy sounds strange to me. HiddenAgenda63 Jun 2013 #41

Yes and no. X_Digger Jun 2013 #72

Not the way the laws are written. Which is the problem. DirkGently Jun 2013 #37

Thanks for the clarification. HiddenAgenda63 Jun 2013 #55

If you walk away from a fight...without stitches...or a trip to the hospital.....come on..... Caroline-Vivienne Jun 2013 #60

I understand. HiddenAgenda63 Jun 2013 #63

The idead behind defending yourself naaman fletcher Jun 2013 #91

Which one of them was the one that was looking for trouble? hobbit709 Jun 2013 #64

Easy. Zimmerman when he left the car and approached Martin. on point Jun 2013 #65

It is impossible to know. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply engaging in conjecture. cherokeeprogressive Jun 2013 #74

Zimmerman by playing amateur cop. Starry Messenger Jun 2013 #78

It's obvious. Zimmerman. backscatter712 Jun 2013 #80

Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2013 #85

No. FS 776 doesn't raise that. flvegan Jun 2013 #81

The chances of conviction are based on the jury. ZombieHorde Jun 2013 #86

keep heaven05 Jun 2013 #94

I'll admit I'm not following this as closely as some.... tarheelsunc Jun 2013 #96