Zimmerman - Guilty of Murder or Self Defense

[Mungwater 597]

Defense rested, sounds like the prosecutor screwed up introducing that mannequin

[parrot 789]

Arthur Fleischman. That sounds made up.

[LOD01 198]

^{Expect the jury to hold out until Monday to limit the damage by the rioters. Most will be sleeping.}

[phillybear 366]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/10/doj-provided-security-for-anti-zimmerman-protests/

 

Docs: Justice Department facilitated anti-Zimmerman protest

 

A division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) was deployed to Sanford, Florida in 2012 to provide assistance for anti-George Zimmerman protests, including a rally headlined by activist Al Sharpton, according to newly released documents.

The Community Relations Service (CRS), a unit of DOJ, reported expenses related to its deployment in Sanford to help manage protests between March and April 2012, according to documents obtained by the watchdog group Judicial Watch.

CRS spent $674.14 between March 25-27 related to having been “deployed to Sanford, FL, to work marches, demonstrations, and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain.” CRS spent another $1,142.84 for the same purpose between March 25-28.

CRS spent $892.55 “to provide support for protest deployment in Florida” between March 30-April 1, and $751.60 “to provide technical assistance to the City of Sanford, event organizers, and law enforcement agencies for the march and rally on March 31.”

Sharpton, who promoted the Tawana Brawley hoax in the 1980s and in 1995 led a protest against the “white interloper” owner of a Harlem clothing store that ended in a deadly shooting rampage at the store, was a featured speaker

, called “The March for Trayvon Martin,” where he advocated for Zimmerman’s prosecution.

CRS expenditures related to the anti-Zimmerman protests continued through mid-April. Between April 11 and April 12, CRS spent $552.35 “to provide technical assistance for the preparation of possible marches and rallies related to the fatal shooting of a 17 year old African American male.”

Local government officials noticed the Department of Justice’s efforts in building “bridges of understanding” in Sanford.

“Congratulations to our partners, Thomas Battles, Regional Director, and Mildred De Robles, Miami-Dade Coordinator and their co-workers at the U.S. Department of Justice Community Relations Service for their outstanding and ongoing efforts to reduce tensions and build bridges of understanding and respect in Sanford, Florida,” wrote Amy Carswell, Miami-Dade County Community Relations Board Program Officer, in an April 16 email.

“Thank you Partner. You did lots of stuff behind the scene to make Miami a success. We will continue to work together,” DOJ official Thomas Battles wrote in reply to Carswell.

“That’s why we make the big bucks,” Carswell replied.

CRS was established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to the CRS web page, “The Community Relations Service is the Department’s ‘peacemaker’ for community conflicts and tensions arising from differences of race, color, and national origin. Created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, CRS is the only Federal agency dedicated to assist State and local units of government, private and public organizations, and community groups with preventing and resolving racial and ethnic tensions, incidents, and civil disorders, and in restoring racial stability and harmony.”

A Department of Justice spokesperson said that she did not know off the top of her head what CRS’ role was in the anti-Zimmerman protests but is currently trying to figure out that answer. The Daily Caller will update this story upon receiving a statement from DOJ.

 

[peenie 1,917]

if my daughter ever gets raped, i hope she lays there and takes it and doesn't fight her attacker because if he decides to kill her in "self-defense" he'll probably "walk" and the public will feel he did so rightfully.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

if my daughter ever gets raped, i hope she lays there and takes it and doesn't fight her attacker because if he decides to kill her in "self-defense" he'll probably "walk" and the public will feel he did so rightfully.

Dumbest post ever.

 

Including the vast library of MDC Matthews and Ducky posts.

[Ken8080 6]

if my daughter ever gets raped, i hope she lays there and takes it

 

I'm sure she will.

[peenie 1,917]

this reminds me very much of the latasha harlins case. a grocery store owner wrongfully believed that a girl (black) was stealing. a tug of war over the counter ensued and as the girl was walking out of the store the store owner shot her in the head. she got no jail time. that along with the rodney king beating set off the rioting in california.

 

i don't have a television and i haven't kept up with this case online as i also don't have a computer at home, but i'm convinced that even with a video tape the country would be very divided on this issue. we see things differently based on our experiences.

 

it's amazing to me until this very day how the store owner was able to avoid any jail time (story begins @ 13 seconds):

 

[5-Points 3,585]

this reminds me very much of the latasha harlins case. a grocery store owner wrongfully believed that a girl (black) was stealing. a tug of war over the counter ensued and as the girl was walking out of the store the store owner shot her in the head. she got no jail time. that along with the rodney king beating set off the rioting in california.

 

i don't have a television and i haven't kept up with this case online as i also don't have a computer at home, but i'm convinced that even with a video tape the country would be very divided on this issue. we see things differently based on our experiences.

 

it's amazing to me until this very day how the store owner was able to avoid any jail time (story begins @ 13 seconds):

 

Did Latasha Harlins punch the store owner in the face for looking at her?

[peenie 1,917]

Dumbest post ever.

 

you're dumb!!!

[peenie 1,917]

Did Latasha Harlins punch the store owner in the face for looking at her?

nope, she sure didn't but she's dead anyway.

zimmerman followed and approached trayvon. not the other way around.

trayvon's body was found on the grass, in between apartment buildings.

zimmerman claimed he was standing at his car, on the street.

he fcking lied!!!!!!!!!!!!

and you are ignoring the fcking facts!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

i don't have a television and i haven't kept up with this case online as i also don't have a computer at home,

 

 

nope, she sure didn't but she's dead anyway.

zimmerman followed and approached trayvon. not the other way around.

trayvon's body was found on the grass, in between apartment buildings.

zimmerman claimed he was standing at his car, on the street.

he fcking lied!!!!!!!!!!!!

and you are ignoring the fcking facts!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

So, you don't keep up with the case, yet you know all about it.

 

[5-Points 3,585]

nope, she sure didn't but she's dead anyway.

zimmerman followed and approached trayvon. not the other way around.

trayvon's body was found on the grass, in between apartment buildings.

zimmerman claimed he was standing at his car, on the street.

he fcking lied!!!!!!!!!!!!

and you are ignoring the fcking facts!!!!!!!!!!!!

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Sho Nuff 720]

peenie not helping any stereotypes on issues like these

[drobeski 3,061]

if my daughter ever gets raped, i hope she lays there and takes it and doesn't fight her attacker because if he decides to kill her in "self-defense" he'll probably "walk" and the public will feel he did so rightfully.

god help your daughter

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Defense rested, sounds like the prosecutor screwed up introducing that mannequin

I had no idea WTF you were talking about witht he mannequin until now.

 

Just saw the video. HOLY FUKK!

 

The prosecution should be brought up on charges of being incompetent morons.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Looks like the Judge kinda flamed out today.

 

Gave the defense a huuuuuuge opening for an appeal if this jury goes OJ and ignores the evidence.

[Voltaire 5,322]

So we're done now except for the ruling... right?

 

Edit, no. Over the next two days, the prosecution gets 2 hours closing statements tomorrow. Then the next day, the defense gets three and the then prosecution gets another one.

[The Moz 69]

I thought the defense usually got the last word in closing statements?

[Voltaire 5,322]

I thought the defense usually got the last word in closing statements?

This is a cut and paste from the USA Today article I got my info from:

 

Zimmerman's attorneys rested their case Wednesday. The state will present closing statements for two hours Thursday. Zimmerman's attorneys get three hours for their case Friday. The state will then get one hour to present rebuttal statements. The jury will likely get the case Friday, Judge Nelson said.

 

It's the very last line in this link: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/10/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-trial-animation/2504917/

[JackARoot 2]

When you claim self-defense, that is an affirmative defense, so the burden shift to the defense to show that he was in fear, that deadly force was necessary, etc. If I'm a juror, I would want to hear Zimmerman's side of the story from his own mouth, not from other witnesses. I would want to be able to evaluate his credibility. Could be a big mistake not to put him on the stand.

[DankNuggs 305]

nope, she sure didn't but she's dead anyway.

zimmerman followed and approached trayvon. not the other way around.

trayvon's body was found on the grass, in between apartment buildings.

zimmerman claimed he was standing at his car, on the street.

he fcking lied!!!!!!!!!!!!

and you are ignoring the fcking facts!!!!!!!!!!!!

Had TM just gone home nothing would have happened. He circled back and inititated violent confrontation. He chose to do it against an armed man.

 

The armed guy should have been aware his actions were creating a potentially volatile situation, he has culpability also.

[The Moz 69]

When you claim self-defense, that is an affirmative defense, so the burden shift to the defense to show that he was in fear, that deadly force was necessary, etc. If I'm a juror, I would want to hear Zimmerman's side of the story from his own mouth, not from other witnesses. I would want to be able to evaluate his credibility. Could be a big mistake not to put him on the stand.

You're trying to say now that HE has to prove he is innocent rather than the state prove he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? That's sort of what I am reading from you here - maybe not. There was plenty of evidence already introduced - GZ getting up would only help the DA and give him a chance to make up ground. Unless there is a true fix in GZ walks on all charges................................................................

 

Anyway the powder Keg is going to go off if GZ is acquitted so expect an OJ verdict

[Mike Honcho 5,304]

You're trying to say now that HE has to prove he is innocent rather than the state prove he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? That's sort of what I am reading from you here - maybe not. There was plenty of evidence already introduced - GZ getting up would only help the DA and give him a chance to make up ground. Unless there is a true fix in GZ walks on all charges................................................................

 

Anyway the powder Keg is going to go off if GZ is acquitted so expect an OJ verdict

 

Um, he shot him...he's asserting self-defense, he does have to prove that....

[The Moz 69]

 

Um, he shot him...he's asserting self-defense, he does have to prove that....

So you are saying he has to prove he is innocent rather than the State has to prove it was NOT in self defense? I am not going to pretend I am a lawyer here I'm not but it has always been my understanding the burden of proof is on the state.

[JackARoot 2]

You're trying to say now that HE has to prove he is innocent rather than the state prove he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? That's sort of what I am reading from you here - maybe not. There was plenty of evidence already introduced - GZ getting up would only help the DA and give him a chance to make up ground. Unless there is a true fix in GZ walks on all charges................................................................

 

Anyway the powder Keg is going to go off if GZ is acquitted so expect an OJ verdict

All I'm saying is that self defense is what is known as an "affirmative defense". So when a defendant claims self defense, he has the burden to prove the elements of self defense. The defense tried to prove the elements through other witnesses. If I were a juror, I would have a problem with the defendant claiming that it was necessary to kill another human being, but then doesn't take the stand to tell me why it was necessary. You have the right to remain silent, but in a self-defense case you have the burden of proof, and I would expect the State to really hammer this point in closing arguments.

[JackARoot 2]

So you are saying he has to prove he is innocent rather than the State has to prove it was NOT in self defense? I am not going to pretend I am a lawyer here I'm not but it has always been my understanding the burden of proof is on the state.

It's the State's burden to prove that the defendant killed someone which isn't being disputed. Since the defendant is claiming the killing was necessary and justified under the self-defense exception, it's his burden to prove that.

[Mike Honcho 5,304]

So you are saying he has to prove he is innocent rather than the State has to prove it was NOT in self defense? I am not going to pretend I am a lawyer here I'm not but it has always been my understanding the burden of proof is on the state.

 

Not in an affirmative defense...same as proving you are innocent by reason of insanity.

 

From Wiki: An affirmative defense is a complete or partial defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal procedure that affirms the complaint or charges but raises facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, would defeat or reduce a claim even if the allegations alleged are all proven. In civil lawsuits, affirmative defenses include the statute of limitations, the statute of frauds, and waiver. In criminal prosecutions, examples affirmative defenses include self defense,^[1] insanity, and the statute of limitations.

 

In an affirmative defense, the defendant affirms that the condition is occurring or has occurred but offers a defense that bars, or prevents, the plaintiff's claim. An affirmative defense is known, alternatively, as a justification, or an excuse, defense.^[2]Consequently, affirmative defenses limit or excuse a defendant's criminal culpability or civil liability.^{[citation needed]}

A clear illustration of an affirmative defense is self defense.^[3] In its simplest form, a criminal defendant may be exonerated if he can demonstrate that he had an honest and reasonable belief that another's use of force was unlawful and that the defendant's conduct was necessary to protect himself.^[4]

Most affirmative defenses must be pled in a timely manner by a defendant in order for the court to consider them, or else they are considered waived by the defendant's failure to assert them. The classic unwaivable affirmative defense is lack ofsubject-matter jurisdiction. The issue of timely assertion is often the subject of contentious litigation.^[

[The Moz 69]

All I'm saying is that self defense is what is known as an "affirmative defense". So when a defendant claims self defense, he has the burden to prove the elements of self defense. The defense tried to prove the elements through other witnesses. If I were a juror, I would have a problem with the defendant claiming that it was necessary to kill another human being, but then doesn't take the stand to tell me why it was necessary. You have the right to remain silent, but in a self-defense case you have the burden of proof, and I would expect the State to really hammer this point in closing arguments.

I always thought the burden of proof was always on the state - where is the resident Perry Mason (ie Worms to confirm / deny) . If the burden of proof is on GZ then there is a chance of Manslaughter if it is on the state there is zero chance.

[The Moz 69]

 

Not in an affirmative defense...same as proving you are innocent by reason of insanity.

 

From Wiki: An affirmative defense is a complete or partial defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal procedure that affirms the complaint or charges but raises facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, would defeat or reduce a claim even if the allegations alleged are all proven. In civil lawsuits, affirmative defenses include the statute of limitations, the statute of frauds, and waiver. In criminal prosecutions, examples affirmative defenses include self defense,^[1] insanity, and the statute of limitations.

 

In an affirmative defense, the defendant affirms that the condition is occurring or has occurred but offers a defense that bars, or prevents, the plaintiff's claim. An affirmative defense is known, alternatively, as a justification, or an excuse, defense.^[2]Consequently, affirmative defenses limit or excuse a defendant's criminal culpability or civil liability.^{[citation needed]}

A clear illustration of an affirmative defense is self defense.^[3] In its simplest form, a criminal defendant may be exonerated if he can demonstrate that he had an honest and reasonable belief that another's use of force was unlawful and that the defendant's conduct was necessary to protect himself.^[4]

Most affirmative defenses must be pled in a timely manner by a defendant in order for the court to consider them, or else they are considered waived by the defendant's failure to assert them. The classic unwaivable affirmative defense is lack ofsubject-matter jurisdiction. The issue of timely assertion is often the subject of contentious litigation.^[

Again - then my thought of GZ 100% walking is changed to 50 / 50. As there is no way to "prove" anything either way -- the best GZ could do in this case is prove that ------- the state CANNOT prove it wasn't self defense -- which he did. But with no witnesses really there really is no way to prove SD just like there is no way to prove Murder or Mansalughter.

 

 

I just would of thought it was the burden of the state to prove it was Murder or Manslaughter which they painfully obviously have not come close to doing -- If the Burden has been all along on GZ to prove he is innocent then everything is shifted to the States favor and GZ is looking at a coin toss verdict.

[JackARoot 2]

I always thought the burden of proof was always on the state - where is the resident Perry Mason (ie Worms to confirm / deny) . If the burden of proof is on GZ then there is a chance of Manslaughter if it is on the state there is zero chance.

Let me give you an example of a self-defense trial that I won. My client was charged with domestic battery. It was alleged that he grabbed his girlfriend's wrists, then pushed down onto a bed. There was no injury alleged, but under Indiana law batter is "touching in a rude, insolent, or angry manner" so if the State proved that he grabbed her wrists and pushed her, then he's guilty.

 

But I had asserted self-defense, and I had my client testify about the missing piece - that reason he grabbed her wrists was that at the time she had grabbed his testicals. So I argued that the amount of force he used was reasonable and necessary under the circumstances in order to defend himself. He was 6'3", 250, and all muscle, and she was 5'3" 120 and I incorporated into the argument that if he had used an unreasonable amount of force that she would have been injured. But I had to put my client on the stand to explain why his actions were necessary.

[cbfalcon 825]

 

Not in an affirmative defense...same as proving you are innocent by reason of insanity.

 

From Wiki: An affirmative defense is a complete or partial defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal procedure that affirms the complaint or charges but raises facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, would defeat or reduce a claim even if the allegations alleged are all proven. In civil lawsuits, affirmative defenses include the statute of limitations, the statute of frauds, and waiver. In criminal prosecutions, examples affirmative defenses include self defense,^[1] insanity, and the statute of limitations.

 

In an affirmative defense, the defendant affirms that the condition is occurring or has occurred but offers a defense that bars, or prevents, the plaintiff's claim. An affirmative defense is known, alternatively, as a justification, or an excuse, defense.^[2]Consequently, affirmative defenses limit or excuse a defendant's criminal culpability or civil liability.^{[citation needed]}

A clear illustration of an affirmative defense is self defense.^[3] In its simplest form, a criminal defendant may be exonerated if he can demonstrate that he had an honest and reasonable belief that another's use of force was unlawful and that the defendant's conduct was necessary to protect himself.^[4]

Most affirmative defenses must be pled in a timely manner by a defendant in order for the court to consider them, or else they are considered waived by the defendant's failure to assert them. The classic unwaivable affirmative defense is lack ofsubject-matter jurisdiction. The issue of timely assertion is often the subject of contentious litigation.^[

 

Admittedly I didn't know any of that, but it's very logical. If every murderer could just claim self defense and the state had to prove it wasn't, that would be nearly impossible in many cases.

 

Not quite sure what I think now of this case. Manslaughter now seems a stronger possibility.

[The Moz 69]

Let me give you an example of a self-defense trial that I won. My client was charged with domestic battery. It was alleged that he grabbed his girlfriend's wrists, then pushed down onto a bed. There was no injury alleged, but under Indiana law batter is "touching in a rude, insolent, or angry manner" so if the State proved that he grabbed her wrists and pushed her, then he's guilty.

 

But I had asserted self-defense, and I had my client testify about the missing piece - that reason he grabbed her wrists was that at the time she had grabbed his testicals. So I argued that the amount of force he used was reasonable and necessary under the circumstances in order to defend himself. He was 6'3", 250, and all muscle, and she was 5'3" 120 and I incorporated into the argument that if he had used an unreasonable amount of force that she would have been injured. But I had to put my client on the stand to explain why his actions were necessary.

Like I said though - there's really no way to prove anything here either way. How can we really ever know if he was in "life threatening" danger or not? I guess what I am saying if GZ has to prove he was defending himself there is no way he really can just like there is no way the State could ever prove he wasn't.

 

Who wins in that case? A person claims self defense and he can't really prove he was but the state can't prove he wasn't.

 

In this case why even claim self defense then -- just say nothing and let the State try you and have all the burden on them?

[JackARoot 2]

Like I said though - there's really no way to prove anything here either way. How can we really ever know if he was in "life threatening" danger or not? I guess what I am saying if GZ has to prove he was defending himself there is no way he really can just like there is no way the State could ever prove he wasn't.

 

Who wins in that case? A person claims self defense and he can't really prove he was but the state can't prove he wasn't.

You can prove the elements of self defense through your own testimony by explaining exactly how you got into the situation, why it was necessary to defend yourself, and why the amount of force you used was reasonable under the circumstances. If you seem to be a credible witness and convince the jury that it was necessary to defend yourself, then you win. But it's the defendant's burden to prove this affirmatively, not the State's burden to prove he wasn't defending himself. I think Zimmerman has a major problem here by not taking the stand and explaining why his actions were necessary, but the defense may not have had much choice if they think that he wouldn't be a very credible witness.

[Mungwater 597]

So now they're going for third degree murder because it was child abuse that ended in death?

 

Can anybody explain that?

[JackARoot 2]

So now they're going for third degree murder because it was child abuse that ended in death?

 

Can anybody explain that?

Must be a quirk in the Fla. statute stemming from the fact that Martin was a minor.

[The Moz 69]

I believe you here - just don't agree with it. So ................... not talking about the GZ case here --- Say you are Jogging at night and some random dude attacks you and you have a knife on you for protection and you end up killing the guy. You have marks on your face and bruises yet YOU HAVE to prove you are innocent in court? While Murder 1, Drug dealers etc. all the burden of proof is on the state?

 

I am not saying you aren't right becasue you would know more about it than me -- but I don't agree with it. The burden shuld be on the state to prove at least liklihood it was not delf defense.

[The Moz 69]

So now they're going for third degree murder because it was child abuse that ended in death?

 

Can anybody explain that?

Yes -- GZ is getting a reverse OJ verdict. This has nothing to do with innocence or guilt - this is all political. I just hope the jury can rise above it and make the right decision and not do the OJ cop out.

[JackARoot 2]

I believe you here - just don't agree with it. So ................... not talking about the GZ case here --- Say you are Jogging at night and some random dude attacks you and you have a knife on you for protection and you end up killing the guy. You have marks on your face and bruises yet YOU HAVE to prove you are innocent in court? While Murder 1, Drug dealers etc. all the burden of proof is on the state?

 

I am not saying you aren't right becasue you would know more about it than me -- but I don't agree with it. The burden shuld be on the state to prove at least liklihood it was not delf defense.

Well, the first step is whether you are charged under the circumstances. In most cases, the State would exercise their discretion and not file charges if they believe that you were defending yourself. But lets say you get charged, your attorney files a notice that you are claiming that the killing falls under the self-defense exception. Let's say there are no other witnesses to the incident. Under these circumstances, the burden falls on you to convince the jury that you were attacked, that you defended yourself, and that's the reason the person was killed. You're attorney would put in photos of your injuries, medical records for the treatment you received, and probably put you on the stand to explain what happened. Otherwise, the only evidence is what the State introduces, i.e. that the victim was stabbed with your knife, that you had the victim's blood on your hands, etc.

 

In most self defense cases, you almost have to take the stand to explain why your actions were necessary. In Zimmerman's case, his defense team is trying to rely on the statements of other witnesses to establish the self-defense exception.

[kutulu 1,683]

From what I read there are some things that Zimmerman said changed over time when questioned again. They would go after him hard about these inconsistencies and depending on how he handled the questioning things could really go bad for him....so I understand not putting him on. From my understanding the jury is not to infer anything from George exercising his right not to testify, but I agree it "looks" bad.