Trayvon Martin: Before the world heard the cries

  • Thread starter Thread starter SwizzleStick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pnewton said:
This is not the standard though. Zimmerman has to make his case of self-defense. The prosecutor only has to prove Zimmerman killed Martin. They do not have to make a case for his state of mind.
Click to expand...
They have to do more than just prove he killed him. That is evident. They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of murder in the second degree.
 
rlg94086 said:
My apologies. I was asking you to cease and desist on the discussion of my blamelessness and “lethal” nature of my posts. I certainly wasn’t asking you to cease and desist posting about the topic. Amazingly, this didn’t stop you from making several posts about my alleged diversion tactic by posting a line from a movie you haven’t seen. Odd priorities - focus on the irrelevant, protest the relevant. 😛 Odd use of smileys.

Nonetheless, I will not expect any answers from you on any topic. However, I will comment on your posts whenever I feel like it is **germain **to the discussion at hand. Am rather sure that you mean “germane.” You are free to put me on ignore, if you wish. I’m aware of my 'freedoms.'
God bless, and I wish you well.
Click to expand...
As I’ve said, God bless you and goodbye.
 
rlg94086 said:
Obviously, his testimony is worthy of question, since he is the accused. The problem for the prosecution is that they don’t appear to have a way to refute his some of his testimony.
Click to expand...
A defendant’s testimony is often seen as self-serving. Not everyone who says they are not guilty are believed. The angle of shot and the distance might be more interesting. For example, it the shot came from above, then the prosecutor can challenge the self-defense argument by wondering why one in fear of his life simply didn’t run away. If it came from below, then Martin’s blood would be all over Zimmerman and he might make his self-defense argument, **if **the judge deems the assault was severe enough.
 
pnewton said:
The law specifically quotes firearms. It was hand to hand combat. No, I have no business where one is allowed to shoot you if he is losing a fight. I call it a fight and not an assault because of the chain of events that led to the gunshot. Maybe I am wrong, but the prosecutor does not agree with you. I have never heard of this level of assault justifying use of deadly force. If you read the chapter prior to the one on deadly force, it seems to fit the scenario better where force, but not deadly force is allowable. I am not the juror, but I would not deem it reasonable if I were.
Click to expand...
Yes. Agreed.
 
pnewton said:
A defendant’s testimony is often seen as self-serving. Not everyone who says they are not guilty are believed. The angle of shot and the distance might be more interesting. For example, it the shot came from above, then the prosecutor can challenge the self-defense argument by wondering why one in fear of his life simply didn’t run away. If it came from below, then Martin’s blood would be all over Zimmerman and he might make his self-defense argument, **if **the judge deems the assault was severe enough.
Click to expand...
Also good points.
 
pnewton said:
A defendant’s testimony is often seen as self-serving. Not everyone who says they are not guilty are believed. The angle of shot and the distance might be more interesting. For example, it the shot came from above, then the prosecutor can challenge the self-defense argument by wondering why one in fear of his life simply didn’t run away. If it came from below, then Martin’s blood would be all over Zimmerman and he might make his self-defense argument, **if **the judge deems the assault was severe enough.
Click to expand...
True. We don’t have the ballistic data.
 
rlg94086 said:
They have to do more than just prove he killed him. That is evident. They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of murder in the second degree.
Click to expand...
Only for a second degree conviction. They do not have to prove that this was not self-defense and they do not have to defend that it was not self-defense do the level of “beyond reasonable doubt”. That is not how the self-defense plea works.
 
pnewton said:
Only for a second degree conviction. They do not have to prove that this was not self-defense and they do not have to defend that it was not self-defense do the level of “beyond reasonable doubt”. That is not how the self-defense plea works.
Click to expand...
Well, as I’ve said before, I’m not a legal expert. I will trust your expertise in the matter.
 
pnewton said:
Only for a second degree conviction. They do not have to prove that this was not self-defense and they do not have to defend that it was not self-defense do the level of “beyond reasonable doubt”. That is not how the self-defense plea works.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info.
 
catharina said:
It still staggers me that anyone who is walking in an unfamiliar
neighborhood, looking around in the rain, would be thought to be "suspicious-looking.

To me, Trayvon’s action seems to be the norm and predictable.
Suspicious? Maybe to the suspicious.
Click to expand...
Generally, I would have to agree, except I would notice someone out walking in the rain and think how chilly and uncomfortable that would be in late February, though maybe not so much in Florida and maybe not so much this winter season since the weather has been so unusually warm. (I also at some point in one of these threads mentioned that I was suspicious of any unknown person that I observed walking in my neighborhood after a nearby home invasion.) But, you and I don’t know what Martin did or did not do. While I agree that walking down the sidewalk is not suspicious behavior in and of itself, a neighborhood watchman would be doing his duty to observe an unknown person and that person’s actions, especially considering there were 8 recent burglaries in the neighborhood. Perhaps Martin was walking on lawns, looking in windows, weaving while he walked (since Zimmerman did say he looked like he was on drugs or something), anything. With that being said, if one of those or another behavior was observed, I wonder why Zimmerman didn’t specifically mention it in his 911 call.
 
maryjk said:
According to what Zimmerman told the dispatcher, he lost sight of Martin and Zimmerman was on his way back to his truck. Then Martin approached him from behind.

As a person that has a concealed carry permit, I understand him not pulling his weapon at that time. While he was walking back, there was no threat. There wasn’t a threat until Martin approached.
Click to expand...
When I look at the map of the area, it boggles my mind exactly where Martin might have disappeared to; I have lived in areas with a similar layout. We’ll have to wait for the trial I suppose…in the meantime, I will also refrain from assuming that Martin approached anyone.
 
maryjk said:
Of course it is. The question was about** why **he did what he did. Who better to ask or listen to, then Zimmerman?

I guess we could make up why he did what he did. We can accuse him of being racist or of racial profiling. We can say anything. Of course, that doesn’t make it true.
Click to expand...
We could also choose to believe his story, but that wouldn’t make it true either. Who better to ask or listen to than the man who stands to lose everything if he is found guilty of murder - really?
 
seekerz said:
I would imagine this would not be the first murder in Florida with no eyewitnesses.
Click to expand...
It’s a homocide. Unless you can read the future.

And there is an eyewitness. He’s backing Zimmerman’s story.
seekerz said:
Surely they all aren’t getting off by pleading self defense.
Click to expand...
They could if they had a believable story and stuck to it. And the evidence coincided with that story (like it does in Zimmerman’s case).
seekerz said:
so the justice system must still retain some capability to protect innocent people.
Click to expand...
Who’s the innocent here? You reading the future again?
 
SwizzleStick said:
You mean the suspicious behavior, but nothing specific, mentioned in the 911 call, I guess? Maybe we’ll learn more about that during the trial.
Click to expand...
See, I don’t think that this will be relevant or helpful to Zimmerman. Just because Martin looked suspicious, even if he had a blueprint of a house marked “House I Plan to Burglarize” in his hand, doesn’t give Zimmerman any right to shoot him.

Whether or not the 911 call was reasonable is actually irrelevant.

The issue of the trial is all going to be about what happened once Zimmerman started following Martin, who started the confrontation, and who did it in a way that made the other fear for their life. Nothing else-not the reason Martin was in the neighborhood, not why he was suspended from school, not what kind of iced tea he had in his hand, not Zimmerman’s prior history, none of that necessarily matters.
 
SwizzleStick said:
Generally, I would have to agree, except I would notice someone out walking in the rain and think how chilly and uncomfortable that would be in late February, though maybe not so much in Florida and maybe not so much this winter season since the weather has been so unusually warm. (I also at some point in one of these threads mentioned that I was suspicious of any unknown person that I observed walking in my neighborhood after a nearby home invasion.) But, you and I don’t know what Martin did or did not do. While I agree that walking down the sidewalk is not suspicious behavior in and of itself, a neighborhood watchman would be doing his duty to observe an unknown person and that person’s actions, especially considering there were 8 recent burglaries in the neighborhood. Perhaps Martin was walking on lawns, looking in windows, weaving while he walked (since Zimmerman did say he looked like he was on drugs or something), anything. With that being said, if one of those or another behavior was observed, I wonder why Zimmerman didn’t specifically mention it in his 911 call.
Click to expand...
Zimmerman had no duties!

He was a self-appointed neighborhood watchman. And again, that isn’t really going to be relevant in this case-exactly how or if Martin looked suspicious is going to be irrelevant.
 
A defendant’s testimony is often seen as self-serving. Not everyone who says they are not guilty are believed. The angle of shot and the distance might be more interesting. For example, it the shot came from above, then the prosecutor can challenge the self-defense argument by wondering why one in fear of his life simply didn’t run away. If it came from below, then Martin’s blood would be all over Zimmerman and he might make his self-defense argument, if the judge deems the assault was severe enough.
Click to expand...
The part I bolded is actually the one thing that the prosecutor can’t do. The Stand Your Ground laws do remove the duty to retreat, so that’s not an issue that can or will come up.

You’re right about the angle of ballistics, though-it would especially be the case if ballistics show that Zimmerman shot Martin from range or from behind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top