Trayvon Martin shooting: Zimmerman says Trayvon decked him, then began hammering him

[Hoofbite]

It up to the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt GZ murdered TM. Does anyone think they have done that?

These cases are kind of odd. It's not like George has denied killing Trayvon at all. Seems like the prosecution could just point out the fact that George has killed Trayvon and admitted to doing so and then let the defense explain why it was justified.

It's kind of a weird scenario to me. We're beyond the question as to whether or not George has killed Trayvon so it seems like the defense has a bigger burden in explaining why he was justified in doing so. It's not like the prosecution has to make a case as to why killing someone wasn't justified because as a basic rule it never is justifiable to kill someone aside from a few specific situations. In that case, the defense has to explain why this is one of those special circumstances.

I mean hypothetically couldn't the prosecution say nothing at all, leaving everything else up to the defense?

In a typical trial if the prosecution did that the defense could stand up and say "they have absolutely nothing" and then it's over and the guy goes home.

In this case, if the prosecution says nothing the defense still has to explain why the defendant shouldn't be convicted.

It's probably an overly simplistic example but I think it gets to the idea that I think the defense has just as much to prove, if not a bigger task all together, than the prosecution in cases of justifiable homicide.

I dunno, maybe Pep can comment on it.

 

[Hoofbite]

They've already shown every interview of him. There is nothing left to impeach. He doesn't have to take the stand, the Prosecution has already let him speak from the interviews and he can't be cross examined. They are idiots.

At all? Even if he took the stand?

 

[peplaw06]

Yeah, when a defendant is charged with murder and his defense to the charge is self-defense, he has the burden of proving that he acted in self-defense. The fact that he killed Trayvon isn't disputed.

If Zimmerman doesn't testify, it's because the defense believed that the state hasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted with a depraved mind or the level of "intent" that is necessary to convict on second degree murder.

 

[iceberg]

These cases are kind of odd. It's not like George has denied killing Trayvon at all. Seems like the prosecution could just point out the fact that George has killed Trayvon and admitted to doing so and then let the defense explain why it was justified.

It's kind of a weird scenario to me. We're beyond the question as to whether or not George has killed Trayvon so it seems like the defense has a bigger burden in explaining why he was justified in doing so. It's not like the prosecution has to make a case as to why killing someone wasn't justified because as a basic rule it never is justifiable to kill someone aside from a few specific situations. In that case, the defense has to explain why this is one of those special circumstances.

I mean hypothetically couldn't the prosecution say nothing at all, leaving everything else up to the defense?

In a typical trial if the prosecution did that the defense could stand up and say "they have absolutely nothing" and then it's over and the guy goes home.

In this case, if the prosecution says nothing the defense still has to explain why the defendant shouldn't be convicted.

It's probably an overly simplistic example but I think it gets to the idea that I think the defense has just as much to prove, if not a bigger task all together, than the prosecution in cases of justifiable homicide.

I dunno, maybe Pep can comment on it.

these cases are like a mood ring. pop culture. for whatever reason they're media attention and like a train wreck, we can't turn away.

but how many case are like this going on today we don't know about?

if deemed racial, how many reverse racial cases could there be just like this one?

far too many.

funny how we let the media tell us what to get mad about.

 

[JBond]

Yeah, when a defendant is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted with a depraved mind or the level of "intent" that is necessary to convict on second degree murder and his defense to the charge is self-defense, he has the burden of proving that he acted in self-defense. The fact that he killed Trayvon isn't disputed.

If Zimmerman doesn't testify, it's because the defense believed that the state hasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted with a depraved mind or the level of "intent" that is necessary to convict on second degree murder.

I will rephrase the question your honor. Has the state proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted with a depraved mind or the level of "intent" that is necessary to convict on a second degree murder charge?

Just curious what our resident legal expert believes. Pep, please take these posts in the manner they are intended. I poke fun at people, but I really want your honest opinion.

 

[Midswat]

Prosecution to rest today.

Mom questioned today. Point was for the jury to hear her say that it was her son screaming on 911 call. She looked as she has all trial - cold and detached.


Trayvon testified. He testified that he wasn't sure if it was Trayvons voice. When asked if he had heard Trayvon scream before "I have, but not like that."

 

[Midswat]

Had to call a recess because they lost the key to the evidence locker.

Holy fuck this entire trial is a joke.

 

[peplaw06]

I will rephrase the question your honor. Has the state proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted with a depraved mind or the level of "intent" that is necessary to convict on a second degree murder charge?

Just curious what our resident legal expert believes. Pep, please take these posts in the manner they are intended. I poke fun at people, but I really want your honest opinion.

I don't know if the state has proven the depraved mind or lack of regard for human life element. I haven't heard all of the evidence, and I'm not on the jury. I think an argument can be made both ways.

 

[Irving Cowboy]

It could just as easily be asked of the prosecution, if you think that GZ acted with a "depraved mind" or an "intent to kill", why wouldn't he just shoot Martin from a distance instead of waiting until he's on top of him slamming his head into the ground?

 

[MetalHead]

I don't know if the state has proven the depraved mind or lack of regard for human life element. I haven't heard all of the evidence, and I'm not on the jury. I think an argument can be made both ways.

They have not...it's not there.It was self defense.

 

[2233boys]

I think they should have gone for man slaughter. I think it would have been a easier case to prove.

 

[MetalHead]

It could just as easily be asked of the prosecution, if you think that GZ acted with a "depraved mind" or an "intent to kill", why wouldn't he just shoot Martin from a distance instead of waiting until he's on top of him slamming his head into the ground?

One question,if GZ(yeah,that depraved and no regard for life guy) intended to kill Trayvon(Sweet angel he),why did GZ call 911 prior to doing so?

 

[2233boys]

I just read this, "the key witnesses are going to be the forensic experts that found none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA on Martin's hands, and the physicians assistant Lindsay Folgate, who examined Zimmerman's injuries the day after the murder and found no broken nose, no head wound that required stitches, no serious injuries at all. "

Is that true?

 

[peplaw06]

It could just as easily be asked of the prosecution, if you think that GZ acted with a "depraved mind" or an "intent to kill", why wouldn't he just shoot Martin from a distance instead of waiting until he's on top of him slamming his head into the ground?

The state doesn't have to prove intent to kill. If Zim had shot him from a distance that would be intent to kill and would be Murder 1 not Murder 2.

They have not...it's not there.It was self defense.

You don't know.

One question,if GZ(yeah,that depraved and no regard for life guy) intended to kill Trayvon(Sweet angel he),why did GZ call 911 prior to doing so?

YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVE INTENT TO KILL!!

I've only told you that 43 times.

 

[JBond]

I just read this, "the key witnesses are going to be the forensic experts that found none of Zimmerman's blood or DNA on Martin's hands, and the physicians assistant Lindsay Folgate, who examined Zimmerman's injuries the day after the murder and found no broken nose, no head wound that required stitches, no serious injuries at all. "

Is that true?

No it is not true. There was no DNA under TM fingernails or on the grip of GZ's gun from my understanding. As far as the injuries, you can look at the pictures and come to your own conclusion.

I would not expect DNA under the fingernails. It was not a cat fight. He punched him with a closed fist.

 

[2233boys]

So he required stitches and had a broken nose? Blood was found on Trayvon's hands and clothes?

I mean if he was beating his face as badly as indicated there would have been blood on his person.

 

[Midswat]

I think they should have gone for man slaughter. I think it would have been a easier case to prove.

Agree and I think I posted this earlier.

Manslaughter you maybe get a conviction.

Murder 2, Zimmerman walks.

DA was either overzealous on his own or succumbed to outside, perhaps political, pressure.

 

[Midswat]

Also, and I don't want to be conspiracy theory guy, but the judge seems to be pretty one sided when it comes to overruling the defenses objections and sustaining the prosecutions objections.

I'm not a lawyer, so when she's giving her reasoning for why she's overruling a lot of the defenses objections, if they're valid reasons.

But I wonder if she herself is feeling outside pressure. Like, hey, there is a lot riding on this case (riots, etc)... prosecution doesn't have a strong case... throw them a solid from time to time and it could be very beneficial to your career.

No idea.... again, black helicopters and aluminum foil hats. Just sayin...

 

[Midswat]

This medical examiner is agenda driven.

Answers the prosecutions without a hitch, but is being very hostile/argumentative with the most basic defense questions. Keeps saying he remembers nothing and that he can answer only what is in notes, but they're not his notes so he can't attest to them, etc.

WTF?

 

[Midswat]

M.E. - Ha no you can't see my notes

Judge - Yeah actually both lawyers can.

M.E. - But they're my notes, ha


SMH