Florida v. Zimmerman

Parent Cafe
1341

<p>“If the defendant presents any evidence of self defense, the state must present evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, to overcome that claim. The defendant can present only a scintilla of evidence in order to use the defense.”</p>

<p>cartera - This part … “if he can demonstrate” … would be wrong then? </p>

<p>“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.”</p>

1342

<p>I wonder why this defense isn’t used more and doesn’t succeed more. In the Miami Herald list of 200 SYG cases, a significant proportion of the defendants are now in prison. SYG is supposedly a “softened” self-defense claim.</p>

1343

<p>

</p>

<p>Completely irrelevant and not worth mentioning for any other reason than character slander.</p>

1344

<p>The question for me is what constitutes “reasonable” doubt in this kind of case. Too often, I think we (and jurors) tend to confuse reasonable doubt and the shadow of a doubt. </p>

<p>My argument all along has been, not that GZ’s actions in the midst of an altercation constitute murder, but that the sum total of his actions that night show a pattern of recklessness that, in light of TM’s death, amounts to manslaughter. That being said, I’m willing to concede that it is at least possible to construct a scenario in which GZ is not guilty, which is precisely what Zimmerman has done.</p>

<p>Even if we can all agree that Zimmerman should never have gotten out of his car to follow Martin in the first place, if TM indeed doubled back and ambushed GZ as he was heading back to his car and savagely beat him (or, at least, beat him badly enough to make Zimmerman reasonably fear for his life), I don’t think the level of his foolishness rises to criminal negligence. Being attacked as you are in the process of removing yourself from a potential confrontation is very different from being attacked while doing something that could very foreseeably lead to a confrontation. </p>

<p>I can’t rule out the possibility that this may, in fact, be the case. I’m not convinced, however, that this is a reasonable possibility, given all the evidence at hand. In the first place, even before we get to inconsistencies in evidence, we should be cautious of accepting Zimmerman’s account at face value because he has obvious reason to lie. The story he is telling is precisely the most favorable account of events he could have constructed for himself under the circumstances. That doesn’t mean he is lying, but it does warrant some skepticism.</p>

<p>However, we also have to consider the following factors:

  1. Zimmerman’s account has not been entirely consistent or convincing. Though the inconsistencies may not be so egregious as to destroy his case, the fact that, for instance, he was willing to voice the fairly lame claim that he left his car to check a street sign - in a development with three streets - casts some doubts on his credibility, and suggests he is willing to be less than totally honest for his own advantage.
  2. Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Martin was running away. To believe that Martin attacked him without further provocation, we have to believe that in the process of getting away from the area, he changed his mind, doubled back, and decided to attack a man who was no longer following him.
  3. Martin’s body was found 80 yards from Zimmerman’s car. If Zimmerman was in the process of returning to his vehicle when Martin approached him, he would have to have ventured pretty far from the car in the first place to be that distance from it at the time of the confrontation.
  4. Zimmerman’s language and behavior even after he had already shot Martin is indicative of an aggressive state of mind, not someone who had meekly retreated from potential conflict. Recall that he continued to restrain Martin even after he was already dead. Zimmerman may not have known that, but the fact that he could shoot Martin and still perceive himself to be in danger from him doesn’t speak well of his judgment.</p>

<p>Again, none of this is a slam-dunk for the prosecution, but the accumulation of evidence makes it hard for me to consider Zimmerman’s account as a reasonable possibility. A remote possibility, perhaps, but not reasonable.</p>

1345

<p>NewHope33</p>

<p>Here is The Tampa Bay Times report. The defendant goes free over 50% of the time except defendants with three or more prior arrests.</p>

<p>[Many</a> killers who go free with Florida ‘stand your ground’ law have history of violence | Tampa Bay Times](<a href=“http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/many-killers-who-go-free-with-florida-stand-your-ground-law-have-history/1241378]Many”>Many killers who go free with Florida 'stand your ground' law have history of violence)</p>

1346

<p>If a defendant gets off on SYG, no civil suits are possible. If he gets off on regular self-defense, he can be sued, and of course the burden of proof is much lower.</p>

<p>My understanding (which may not be correct) is that the defense has to give some evidence of self-defense. But the prosecution has introduced several videos in which Zimmerman tells his story/ies and claims self-defense. If the prosecution had not introduced these videos, the defense could not have. They would have had to put Zimmerman on the stand. Now they don’t. The evidence for self-defense is there in the videotaped interviews, etc.</p>

<p>It’s up to the jury to weigh all the evidence.</p>

1347

<p>Some people were quoting her earlier, it’s kind of relevant. I was just wondering if anybody saw that information. </p>

<p>You throw around the word slander quite loosely, I think you should reevaluate that. You say it’s slander for me to bring up words that were written by a young lady? Determining how credible a witness is in a MURDER TRIAL is important.</p>

1348

<p>^^ Dad - I guess GZ’s got a 50% chance of acquittal then. He only had two prior arrests.</p>

1349

<p>thanks apprenticeprof–find your 1344 post helpful in itemizing the inconsistencies in GZ’s report. </p>

<p>I am curious how long GZ was at the crime scene before leaving? Unless he left immediately, I fail to see how it’s possible he didn’t realize TM was dead?</p>

1350

<p>" I for one believe GZ DID set out to kill TM. But the jury might decide otherwise."</p>

<p>Sally - If GZ had set out to kill TM, I highly doubt he would have called in to the police before hand. That really doesn’t make much sense. Whether he killed TM after the call is something else. But I don’t think he was sitting in his car saw TM and decided to get out and kill him.</p>

1351

<p>Re: [Many</a> killers who go free with Florida ‘stand your ground’ law have history of violence | Tampa Bay Times](<a href=“http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/many-killers-who-go-free-with-florida-stand-your-ground-law-have-history/1241378]Many”>Many killers who go free with Florida 'stand your ground' law have history of violence)</p>

<p>It looks like Florida judges might be forgetting to apply 776.041:</p>

<p>[-</a> Chapter 776 - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate](<a href=“2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate”>Chapter 776 - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate)</p>

1352

<p>MG: You might be right. On the other hand, the one thing GZ knew about was the legal system in Florida–both from his father and from a class he took in community college (one of the few where he got a decent grade).</p>

<p>I don’t think he decided upon first seeing TM to kill him. I think it’s more likely that he became increasingly enraged when TM tried to get away. We also know GZ had anger-management issues and documented violent episodes in his past. Sometimes it doesn’t take much to “flip the switch.”</p>

1353

<p>will the jury know about the arrests or anger management?</p>

1354

<p>I was just wondering that myself. I would think any criminal history would be admissible. Perhaps a lawyer will weigh in.</p>

1355

<p>My nephew sent me a link this morning to a situation in Hawthorne, CA, in which a man was filming a police action on his cell phone. He saw the cops coming to get him, so he took a moment to put his dog (a Rottweiler) in his car. The cops arrested him (apparently for having music playing in his car) and handcuffed him, at which point the dog got out of an open window. The dog was apparently upset at its owner being manhandled, came over to investigate, at one point jumping up - the behavior was not especially aggressive, but one of the cops interpreted it as such and fire four rounds into the dog, fatally wounding it.</p>

<p>This struck me as similar to the Zimmerman case, because both situations start with a small bad decision that then leads to something terrible. In Hawthorne, the police decided to arrest a guy for playing music too loud and end up shooting his dog. In Florida, Zimmerman decided to pursue beyond his authority or training and ended up shooting a kid who had not apparently done anything wrong.</p>

<p>Our justice system is not really set up to address these situations, outside a few specific circumstances. Maybe at the instant of the shootings Zimmerman and the cop in Hawthorne each did the right thing… but that does not change the fact that the instant in question was created by their bad decisions. How do we address this in law?</p>

1356

<p>Somebody asked about the burden of proof on self defense. Here is a quote from a Florida appellate case on that issue.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>As previously noted, the prosecution has introduced evidence to raise the prima facie showing of self defense.</p>

1357

<p>I think previous criminal history only is used in the sentencing phase. Too prejudicial.</p>

1358

<p>^ Whoa, the Prosecution has introduced evidence that GZ had reasonable cause to shoot TM? When did that happen?</p>

<p>“Prima facie may be used as an adjective meaning “sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted;” e.g., prima facie evidence.”</p>

<p>I belief the relevant “fact” here is that GZ was in sufficient danger that he was justified in taking TM’s life. What “fact” are others using? (And please don’t say “self-defense.” Self-defense a claim or a conclusion.)</p>

1359

<p>thanks Barrons. I thought that might be the case.</p>

<p>on the news where they are broadcasting the trial, they are broadcasting an interview Z did with some reporter, and he is complaining about media “rush to judgement.”</p>

<p>Sheesh. Pot meet kettle.</p>

<p>I mean isn’t this case about a horrible rush to judgement gone to nightmare?</p>

1360

<p>The chief medical examiner indicates GZ’s injuries are NOT consistent with one’s head being slammed repeatedly into concrete. She stated there would have been more lacerations and much more bleeding, etc.</p>

<p>She reported that GZ’s injuries were insignificant and required no sutures, he did not go to the ER.</p>