Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[WildCat]

How can he establish that with his fuzzy memory after being beaten within an inch of his life?

If only there was forensics or witnesses or audio recordings or physical evidence!

Oh, wait...

 

[WildCat]

Which is not relevant to the argument the prosecution is likely to make, reasonable response to a person in car staring at you: move away. Reasonable response to same person later appearing to be following you: reasonable suspicion and perhaps threat.

Except we know he didn't move away, because he was out of sight before Zimmerman even got out of his truck. He had all kinds of time to make it home.

 

[Cylinder]

No, not exactly ironclad proof, but it's there none the less. They had their patio door open, and the heard the confrontation start at the Tee, and move down the sidewalk. That is contrary to the fight starting 50 feet away, or even starting south and moving north. And what they heard was arguing and scuffling.

This really presents a good example of evaluating evidence and using the individual elements to view the larger mosaic. If W8 is to be beleived, the confrontation and altercation began largely as Zimmerman - each just points to the other actor as the agressor. More importantly in this instance, both agree that the physical altercation began directly after the three words. Zimmerman claims the three exchanges, followed by Martin punching him. W8 claims basically the opposite. Luckily, for this exercise we don't have to determine who started the physical altercation - we are just determining where it began.\

With our goalposts firmly anchored we decide, as good jurors (or people who accept Zimmerman's claims not matter how contrived as we're sometimes referred) look back to the independant evidence. Of course, W11 becomes prime focus since she is ideally placed to settle this dispute.

W11, as it turns out, hears exactly what W8 and Zimmerman claim - words turning quicly to a struggle. Of course, she has no idea who started the mess, but that's not the immediate concern. But maybe she's mistaken. Who can back her story? One answer we all know is W6. W11 claims words, a scuffle that (may have) turned the T, then moved south as the cries for help began. W6 hears and then sees a full on fight which is near W11 and moving toward him. We now have three people agreeing how it started and two agreeing where it started. The two that agree are doing it blind - they have no idea of the other's claim. Pretty compelling. But that's not all.

Since W11 claims to have heard the fight start, when do we have evidence of that claim? Maybe she made it up and just happened, by mere coincidence, to give the same story as Zimmerman and W8. Looking even closer, we find that W11 - the person who's claims would make her the first to become aware of the altercation - is also the first person to call 911 and the only one to capture the altercation in progress.

Add on top of that the witnesses who saw and heard less, but still place whatever activity north of or at W6. You have to weigh that against a person who first claims to have saw shadows running or chasing - first two, then later one, ten minutes before the gunshot - which cannot be reconciled with W8, Zimmerman or Zimmerman's NEN call.

This post is a waste of bandwidth, though, because we all know that I'm just making things up and accepting whatever wild-assed claims Zimmerman dishes out.

 

[remirol]

No there isn't. The entire burden is on the prosecution.

The minute George attempts to make the legal claim of "self defense" he will have to offer his version of the story. That version is going to have to stand up to heavy scrutiny, and if he gets on the stand to a vigorous cross examination as well.

The state can lead off by presenting a very limited version of events which will force George to respond:

* George saw Trayvon walking alone
* George followed him in his car
* George exited that car and continued following Trayvon
* George and Trayvon scuffled
* George shot Trayvon

None of these facts are in dispute. As such, George is going to have to present a version of events that allows him to invoke self-defense -- and once he starts doing that, now he has to make it believable to six people in a jury box, none of whom were bright enough to get out of jury duty*.

See, here's the thing, George is in a bad situation to start from, not a neutral situation. The completely-bare facts are that _George shot Trayvon_. Absent any further testimony, George goes to jail for Murder Two. As mentioned before, those of you who are under the impression that this is an open and shut case for the defense right now are in for some serious potential heartbreak. I haven't yet come to anything I'd describe as a concrete conclusion WRT this case, but I can say that by default I lean towards convicting George because he took several actions that escalated the situation, rather than defused it:

* Followed Trayvon in his car
* Exited the car to continue following
* Confronted Trayvon

These taken together are enough for me to decide that George is clearly at fault for this death. Whether I would convict him of Murder Two is up in the air as I only have so much time and haven't gone through all the evidence and built a timeline yet, but I can guarantee this is the angle the prosecution will take to destroy George's (expected) self-defense claims; that George re-established contact with Trayvon several times, had the opportunity to break away and let law enforcement handle it, and did not do so. And it has a reasonably good chance of success, because Joe Ordinary is not going to have much sympathy for wannabe heroes like George.

(We haven't even got into voir dire yet and its possible effects; good luck getting any gun owners on that jury, for example, as I'd expect the prosecution to move to strike them all on "predisposed towards guns being for self-defense" -- and if a judge grants that every time, George goes to jail. Not as easy to do that for any black jurors, though you can bet the defense is going to want to do so.)




* I wish I was joking.

 

[Cylinder]

No there isn't. The entire burden is on the prosecution.

As a minor nitpick, there is a burden on the defendant to produce "some evidence" that they acted in self defense. Even a defendant's own unsupported statements satisy that burden though.

Vila v. State

According to Vila's testimony, the victim attacked him first, and he responded in order to defend himself against that attack. The State contends that Vila was not entitled to the instruction because the evidence that he presented was minimal and self-serving. This argument lacks merit as a defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction if there is any evidence to support his defense. Wright v. State, 705 So. 2d 102, 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding that defendant is entitled to jury instruction on his theory of case if there is any evidence to support it, no matter how flimsy that evidence might be); Taylor v. State, 410 So. 2d 1358, 1359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (holding defendant entitled to requested self-defense instruction no matter "how weak or improbable his testimony may have been with respect to the circumstances" leading to commission of offense).

Gregory v State

A criminal defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the law applicable to his or her theory of defense where there is any evidence to support it, no matter how weak or flimsy.

The claim has to meet a prima facie standard. That is, if veiwed in the light most favorable to the claimant it would satisfy the statutory requirement. If I foolishly claimed that I shot a victim because she pulled a gun on me as I was trying to rape her, I wouldn't be entitled to a instruction because even though I'm claiming self-defense, my claim does not satisfy the forcible felony statute. If I just skipped over the I was trying to rape her part, I would satisfy the statute even if the evidence was overwhelming that I was.

 

[WildCat]

The minute George attempts to make the legal claim of "self defense" he will have to offer his version of the story. That version is going to have to stand up to heavy scrutiny, and if he gets on the stand to a vigorous cross examination as well.

The state can lead off by presenting a very limited version of events which will force George to respond:

* George saw Trayvon walking alone
* George followed him in his car
* George exited that car and continued following Trayvon
* George and Trayvon scuffled
* George shot Trayvon

None of these facts are in dispute.

And those are the only known facts?

It doesn't say much for the state's case that a murder 2 charge can only be justified once you ignore 95% of the facts and evidence.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

As a mionor nitpick, there is a burden on the defendant to produce "some evidence" that they acted in self defense. Even a defendant's own unsupported statements satisy that burden though.

Vila v. State


Gregory v State


The claim has to meet a prima facie standard. That is, if veiwed in the light most favorable to the claimant it would satisfy the statutory requirement. If I foolishly claimed that I shot a victim because she pulled a gun on me as I was trying to rape her, I wouldn't be entitled to a instruction because even though I'm claiming self-defense, my claim does not satisfy the forcible felony statute. If I just skipped over the I was trying to rape her part, I would satisfy the statute even if the evidence was overwhelming that I was.

Thanks, I knew that the defense had to establish "some evidence" that they acted in self defense - but from then, the burden is on the defense.

A valid point however, and good information.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

<SNIP>
I haven't yet come to anything I'd describe as a concrete conclusion WRT this case, but I can say that by default I lean towards convicting George because he took several actions that escalated the situation, rather than defused it:

* Followed Trayvon in his car
* Exited the car to continue following
* Confronted Trayvon

These taken together are enough for me to decide that George is clearly at fault for this death. Whether I would convict him of Murder Two is up in the air as I only have so much time and haven't gone through all the evidence and built a timeline yet, but I can guarantee this is the angle the prosecution will take to destroy George's (expected) self-defense claims; that George re-established contact with Trayvon several times, had the opportunity to break away and let law enforcement handle it, and did not do so. And it has a reasonably good chance of success, because Joe Ordinary is not going to have much sympathy for wannabe heroes like George.

I brought this up earlier. No one actually addressed the argument, just bashed Jeralyn.
She makes the case that GZ did not confront TM, as you have claimed above. And of course, she references one of the Gilbreath quotes that everyone loves to ignore.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/...Zimmerman-Case-Attorney-Warfare-and-Witness-8

Fourth: This is now the third time Witness 8 has said Trayvon Martin initiated the verbal encounter between him and Zimmerman. In her March 19 account to Crump, her April 2 account to the prosecutor and again in this letter, she says Martin asked Zimmerman some variation of, "What are you following me for?" to which Zimmerman responded. The state continues to ignore its own witness' account. In its response, it writes:

....it is important to set the record straight about a few undisputed facts. ....Defendant confronted Trayvon Martin

Not only is that disputed rather than undisputed, it is contrary to the three statements of Witness 8 and the testimony of the state's investigator at the April 20 bond hearing:

O'Mara: So do you know who started the fight? GILBREATH: Do I know?
O'MARA: Right.
GILBREATH: No.
O'MARA: Do you have any evidence that supports who may have started the fight?
GILBREATH: No.


So remirol, what is the evidence that you think demonstrates that GZ confronted TM ?

Also, I bolded "at fault" because I would also like to know how you came the the conclusion GZ was legally at fault - do you have evidence he did something illegal ? Following, exiting the car ... I understand how that can make someone blame GZ for the chain of events, but that is not the same as being legally 'at fault'.

 

[Rare Truth]

The minute George attempts to make the legal claim of "self defense" he will have to offer his version of the story. That version is going to have to stand up to heavy scrutiny, and if he gets on the stand to a vigorous cross examination as well.

The state can lead off by presenting a very limited version of events which will force George to respond:

* George saw Trayvon walking alone
* George followed him in his car
* George exited that car and continued following Trayvon
* George and Trayvon scuffled
* George shot Trayvon

None of these facts are in dispute. As such, George is going to have to present a version of events that allows him to invoke self-defense -- and once he starts doing that, now he has to make it believable to six people in a jury box, none of whom were bright enough to get out of jury duty*.

See, here's the thing, George is in a bad situation to start from, not a neutral situation. The completely-bare facts are that _George shot Trayvon_. Absent any further testimony, George goes to jail for Murder Two. As mentioned before, those of you who are under the impression that this is an open and shut case for the defense right now are in for some serious potential heartbreak. I haven't yet come to anything I'd describe as a concrete conclusion WRT this case, but I can say that by default I lean towards convicting George because he took several actions that escalated the situation, rather than defused it:

* Followed Trayvon in his car
* Exited the car to continue following
* Confronted Trayvon

These taken together are enough for me to decide that George is clearly at fault for this death. Whether I would convict him of Murder Two is up in the air as I only have so much time and haven't gone through all the evidence and built a timeline yet, but I can guarantee this is the angle the prosecution will take to destroy George's (expected) self-defense claims; that George re-established contact with Trayvon several times, had the opportunity to break away and let law enforcement handle it, and did not do so. And it has a reasonably good chance of success, because Joe Ordinary is not going to have much sympathy for wannabe heroes like George.

(We haven't even got into voir dire yet and its possible effects; good luck getting any gun owners on that jury, for example, as I'd expect the prosecution to move to strike them all on "predisposed towards guns being for self-defense" -- and if a judge grants that every time, George goes to jail. Not as easy to do that for any black jurors, though you can bet the defense is going to want to do so.)




* I wish I was joking.

Well said.

 

[Rare Truth]

just bashed Jeralyn...

It's easy to bash Jeralyn. She's a thin-skinned skunk. She deletes any comment that obstructs her version of how she sees things.

I have no respect for the Timothy McVeigh defender with a trigger happy delete button that is too weak to allow diversity, and she is in bed with the racist witness tamperers at the treehouse.

It's her site, and she can do what she wants, but she deserves every bit of contempt that is heaped upon her, imo.

 

[Cylinder]

...and she is in bed with the racist witness tamperers at the treehouse.

What a ridiculous lie.

 

[Rare Truth]

No, it's not.

They are witness tamperers, and Jeralyn is in bed with them.

Filthy skunks and the worst dregs of society.

 

[phonebook]

They are witness tamperers, and Jeralyn is in bed with them.

Proof of the highlighted?

ETA: Just in case, I suppose I should also ask you to clarify what you mean by "in bed with them", so what did you mean by that?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

It's easy to bash Jeralyn. She's a thin-skinned skunk. She deletes any comment that obstructs her version of how she sees things.

I have no respect for the Timothy McVeigh defender with a trigger happy delete button that is too weak to allow diversity, and she is in bed with the racist witness tamperers at the treehouse.

It's her site, and she can do what she wants, but she deserves every bit of contempt that is heaped upon her, imo.

No, it's not.

They are witness tamperers, and Jeralyn is in bed with them.

Filthy skunks and the worst dregs of society.

So you have no criticisms to apply to her arguments.

Just unfounded accusations and ad hominem attacks against her. Par for the course.

 

[Unabogie]

Your post would be less ironic had GZ actually used the words and/or phrases "rooted in place" , "pummeled", or "immediately."

Let's see what GZ actually says: "The suspect punched me in the face . I fell backwards onto my back."

Is it surprising that he uses none of the words you use, yet you accuse someone else of "embellishing" the story ?

It's almost as if you're willfully forgetting the last 5 times I've posted this.

Zimmerman: And I said, Hey man, I don’t have a problem. And he goes, No, now you have a problem. And he punched me in the nose. At that point I fell down, ah I tried to defend myself, he just started punching me in the face.


Singleton: Are you still standing at this point?
Zimmerman: No ma’am.
Singleton: OK.
Zimmerman: I fell to the ground when he punched me the first time.
Singleton: OK.
Zimmerman: It was dark. I didn’t even see him getting ready to punch me. As soon as he punched me, I fell backwards, um, into the grass, and then he grabbed, he was whaling on my head,


Sorry, buddy. That's what he told them. He doesn't get to call that hazy memory now. And you don't get to continue to pretend like I haven't posted that before. Several times.

 

[Dan O.]

So remirol, what is the evidence that you think demonstrates that GZ confronted TM ?

So, what definition of confront are you using?

I find this definition:

.. Meet someone face to face with hostile or argumentative intent.​

Are you claiming that speaking first negates the confrontation? Are you claiming that "what are you following me for?" somehow makes trayvon the aggressor? Where is the hostile intent? Trayvon is minding his own business. He is in a place where he is entitled to be. Trayvon has already shown his intent to avoid confrontation by running away.

George has been following trayvon for several blocks both in his car and then on foot. George demands "What are you doing here". George has shown his hostile intent in his recorded police call. And though George has a right to walk where he chooses in the open space of that neighborhood, he does not have a right to be stalking a kid though the neighborhood at night and especially not while armed with a deadly weapon.

 

[Aber]

Singleton: Are you still standing at this point?
Zimmerman: No ma’am.
Singleton: OK.
Zimmerman: I fell to the ground when he punched me the first time.
Singleton: OK.
Zimmerman: It was dark. I didn’t even see him getting ready to punch me. As soon as he punched me, I fell backwards, um, into the grass, and then he grabbed, he was whaling on my head,
[/COLOR]

Has it ever been mentioned whether it was a right-handed or left-handed punch first, given that TM was right-handed and had a mark on his left hand?

 

[Unabogie]

Has it ever been mentioned whether it was a right-handed or left-handed punch first, given that TM was right-handed and had a mark on his left hand?

If you look at George's face, the cut on his nose is on the right hand side. But I'd say that most right-handed people swing with their dominant hand and jab with the off hand in a fight so I'm not sure if that explains the tiny wound on his left hand. But I doubt we can be this precise. All we know is George said he "whaled" on his head. That means two hands, usually. And he said it felt like "bricks", which means we really ought to see some wounds on the hands. We also don't see any defensive wounds on George's hands. And George never explains what he's doing with his hands all this time. If he's grabbing at his victim, or trying to block blows, then where are his defensive wounds? Why is there no blood from his face on Trayvon, especially under his nails, on his hands, or on his sleeves?

Some people here claim that they never tested his hands for blood, but that seems far fetched. On that score, we're still in wait-and-see mode.

 

[Aber]

Just wondering whether it is possible that GZ grabbed TM's right arm to detain him, and got a roundhouse left in return?

 

[Unabogie]

Just wondering whether it is possible that GZ grabbed TM's right arm to detain him, and got a roundhouse left in return?

This is the crux of the case. There are some people that believe that Trayvon, with no provocation, hid in the bushes and waited for George (who he had no idea would follow him out of his truck) and then assaulted him with no warning and no reason. If you follow George's claims, he never said so much as a cross word to the kid, who immediately started to attempt to murder him.

Zimmerman: It was dark. I didn’t even see him getting ready to punch me. As soon as he punched me, I fell backwards, um, into the grass, and then he grabbed, he was whaling on my head,

From that point on, the kid was intent on causing his death.

What Serino was asking in those interviews is "why?" Why would this kid immediately attempt murder? The obvious answer is that George is leaving out some key details, like he tried to grab him by the arm after demanding "WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?"

That seems far more likely that the B-movie dialogue George made up. You'll notice that even George's defenders here don't believe that Trayvon talked the way George said he did.

Oh, and welcome to the fray! Please enjoy your stay!