Will jurors just forget what they heard?

[Abatis]

That is untrue. Simply thinking your life is in danger is not a justification for the use of deadly force.

But having the physical altercation (that Martin initiated) escalate into a gun grab by Martin and Zimmerman hearing "you're going to die tonight motherfucker" from Martin, IS justification for the use of deadly force.

What part of the burden on the state to disprove Zimmerman's affirmative defense, to prove that Zimmerman's account is wrong and that he acted with malice, with a “depraved mind” when he shot Martin (to support the charge of 2nd Degree Murder) don't you understand?

All the BS that you think is so compelling and so important becomes meaningless without the state providing evidence / testimony THAT PROVES THE CHARGES.

There will be a motion to dismiss when the prosecution rests and it should be granted.

 

[Timshel]

Nor could you with my post.
You just threw it out there and hoped it would stick.

But I did. You speculated that Trayvon struggled for the gun.

 

[Timshel]

But it is also why it is part of the defense.

You talk in circles. See Soc more detailed post. The state cannot possibly prove what a defendant is thinking and the legal standards do not require them too.

 

[Timshel]

So you agree with the fact that Zimmerman probably thought his life was in imminent danger when Trayvon was banging his head on the sidewalk, unless someone can show that Trayvon intended to stop after 2 or 3 times.

More speculation on your part.

 

[Abatis]

There is no duty under Florida law, or most states self defense laws that you first attempt less than deadly force. If Zimmerman can prove that almost immediately he felt Martin's actions were he can move immediately to deadly force. However, insignificant injuries make that claim less credible.

Martin's attempt to gain control of Zimmerman's lawfully possessed gun, along with Martin's verbal threat to kill Zimmerman, was the act "likely to cause death or great bodily harm" which makes the shooting justifiable and non-criminal.

This would be true even without any prior physical contact and without any injuries.

 

[Timshel]

But having the physical altercation (that Martin initiated) escalate into a gun grab by Martin and Zimmerman hearing "you're going to die tonight motherfucker" from Martin, IS justification for the use of deadly force.

What part of the burden on the state to disprove Zimmerman's affirmative defense, to prove that Zimmerman's account is wrong and that he acted with malice, with a “depraved mind” when he shot Martin (to support the charge of 2nd Degree Murder) don't you understand?

All the BS that you think is so compelling and so important becomes meaningless without the state providing evidence / testimony THAT PROVES THE CHARGES.

There will be a motion to dismiss when the prosecution rests and it should be granted.

The claims about what Martin said depend on whether you believe Zimmerman. He has lots of holes, falsehoods and contradictions in his statements. Way too many for me to find him fully credible. That's without considering his perjury (I don't know if that has been introduced or can be).

There is no proof that Martin reached for the gun either and the defends has not introduced evidence of a struggle for the gun. His buddy contradicts his statements to the police on that point too, which makes his story less believable.

 

[DamnYankee]

Baxter, are you going to 'riot and break shit' when Zimmy is acquitted?

 

[evince]

why are you so certain he will be acquitted?

 

[Abatis]

where is the evidence he was being beaten so bad his life was about to end?

Who's claim is that?

 

[evince]

But having the physical altercation (that Martin initiated) escalate into a gun grab by Martin and Zimmerman hearing "you're going to die tonight motherfucker" from Martin, IS justification for the use of deadly force.

What part of the burden on the state to disprove Zimmerman's affirmative defense, to prove that Zimmerman's account is wrong and that he acted with malice, with a “depraved mind” when he shot Martin (to support the charge of 2nd Degree Murder) don't you understand?

All the BS that you think is so compelling and so important becomes meaningless without the state providing evidence / testimony THAT PROVES THE CHARGES.

There will be a motion to dismiss when the prosecution rests and it should be granted.

there is no evidence that trayvon said that

 

[Abatis]

Again, Zimmerman was getting owned so hard, Trayvon saw his gun and moved for it, but Zimmerman was able to draw and shoot cleanly. It does not add up.

But guess what? Without physical evidence and/or direct testimony proving Zimmerman's account is wrong and that he acted with malice, with a “depraved mind” when he shot Martin, IT DOES ADD UP . . . to a not guilty (of 2nd degree murder) verdict . . .

 

[Timshel]

Baxter, are you going to 'riot and break shit' when Zimmy is acquitted?

You were sitting home watching your tv
while I was participating in some anarchy

 

[DamnYankee]

You were sitting home watching your tv
while I was participating in some anarchy

Awesome. You going to do it again?

 

[Abatis]

Nope, he has to have reasonable belief that there was a threat. If the prosecution proves his belief was not reasonable then he has a problem.

And if they can't . . . then the prosecution has a problem.

Right?

 

[DamnYankee]

why are you so certain he will be acquitted?

Because juries tend to see through the typical liberal smear job.

 

[Timshel]

So tell me which section or subsection you feel goes against Zimmerman.

Strawman. I did not cite that to support THAT assertion. I cited it to support the assertion the belief must be reasonable.

 

[Abatis]

If all a cop did to defend himself against being struck was pull his gun and shoot, you would be screaming.

Where are the calls for "Justice for Eddie Jones III"??????


Had Eddie Jones III been unsuccessful in his gun grab and was shot in the process before any cops were hurt would the police be accused of shooting an "unarmed" person?

 

[Abatis]

But they can't PROVE what Zimmerman was thinking at the time that Trayvon was assaulting him and putting Zimmerman's life at risk.

Which is why that is not the standard.

Of course it is the burden of the prosecution to prove Zimmerman's state of mind . . .

The 2nd Degree Murder statute demands it:

"The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084."

Florida Statutes​

The state must show or demonstrate clearly that an UNLAWFUL killing resulted from the defendant's depraved mind regardless of human life but without any direct intent or premeditation (that would be 1st degree murder).

That is most certainly speaks directly to the defendant's "state of mind" and falling short of proving that "state of mind" resulted in UNLAWFUL death, the prosecution fails its burden and Zimmerman's affirmative defense demands a not guilty verdict (or more likely, a granting of a motion to dismiss after the prosecution rests) . . .

 

[Socrtease]

So you don't believe that someone sitting on your chest and hitting your head on the sidewalk would cause anyone to think that they might be in danger of immediate great bodily harm or death?

I have been in many fights as a young man. I have someone sit on my chest and punch me repeatedly, choke me, etc. If his head was repeatedly bounced off the ground then MAYBE, but there is no evidence that is what happened. He had some head wounds but was there was no testimony of concussion, which is the ONLY evidence that he would have suffered ANY traumatic brain injury. No TBI and IMO no reasonable belief that you were in any danger of imminent death or great bodily injury. The evidence I have read or seen says to me nothing more than he probably shouldn't have been following someone because he was going to get his ass kicked.

 

[evince]

Who's claim is that?

Zimmy does.


he feared for his life and felt the only way to preserve his life was to kill the kid he stalked in the dark with a loaded gun