New guy - A pondering I have had about the Zimmerman case.

[rushcreek2]

Most people who have ever been involved in a major vehicular collision should be able to identify some core considerations relevant to assigning RESPONSIBILITY for the resultant " collision" between Martin, and Zimmerman.

The matter ultimately boils down to a determination as to which party was PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE for the collision.

There were in fact multiple collisions PRECEDING the final collision of a 9MM bullet with Martin's BODY.

Initial point of contact was Martin's FIST impacting Zimmerman's HEAD, followed by a subsequent number of follow up collisions between Martin's FISTS and Zimmerman's HEAD, accompanied by a number of collisions between Zimmerman' HEAD and the sidewalk.

There is either forensic evidence, or eyewitness testimony documenting all of these collisions, and the assignment of RESPONSIBILITY to the party INITIATING the actions producing each collision.

Returning to the vehicular collision analogy - independent of extenuating circumstances, the party presented with the FINAL opportunity to AVOID the INITIAL collision is generally considered responsible REGARDLESS OF THE PRECEDENT POSTURE of either vehicle.

I am tempted to comment further regarding the "social dynamics" orchestrated, and injected into this matter with the intent of overriding any purely objective analysis of the facts , and the simple application of reason and logic in resolving a judgement pursuant to those facts.

I opt to refrain from stepping into that puddle of tar.

 

[LeviR]

Most people who have ever been involved in a major vehicular collision should be able to identify some core considerations relevant to assigning RESPONSIBILITY for the resultant " collision" between Martin, and Zimmerman.

The matter ultimately boils down to a determination as to which party was PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE for the collision.

There were in fact multiple collisions PRECEDING the final collision of a 9MM bullet with Martin's BODY.

Initial point of contact was Martin's FIST impacting Zimmerman's HEAD, followed by a subsequent number of follow up collisions between Martin's FISTS and Zimmerman's HEAD, accompanied by a number of collisions between Zimmerman' HEAD and the sidewalk.

There is either forensic evidence, or eyewitness testimony documenting all of these collisions, and the assignment of RESPONSIBILITY to the party INITIATING the actions producing each collision.

Returning to the vehicular collision analogy - independent of extenuating circumstances, the party presented with the FINAL opportunity to AVOID the INITIAL collision is generally considered responsible REGARDLESS OF THE PRECEDENT POSTURE of either vehicle.

I am tempted to comment further regarding the "social dynamics" orchestrated, and injected into this matter with the intent of overriding any purely objective analysis of the facts , and the simple application of reason and logic in resolving a judgement pursuant to those facts.

I opt to refrain from stepping into that puddle of tar.

If what you say is true, then it really is tragic that the media has taken it upon themselves to hang this guy before his trial, inevitably biasing the jurors. The mass of people really seem to prefer to be cheerleaders for the prosecution whenever the media tells them to. Sick.

I'm sure 92FSLady will be all over your case about your post...

 

[We-the-People]

So? I wouldn't lead someone to my home who was trailing me.

Nothing illegal about either ones actions. Until the point of the fight. None of us where there I could not convict Z with the information at hand just like I wouldn't be able to convict T with the same information if the outcome was different.

I know people rarely have a middle ground on this issue, but the truth is none of us know what happened exactly and convictions we may have are based an assumptions and personal bias.

And that is the thing so many forget. NEITHER did anything illegal until the point at which the mortal combat began. Z is criticised for following M but IT'S NOT AGAINST THE LAW. M may have been up to no good but as far as anyone knows he had NOT COMMITTED A CRIME.

What the dispatcher told Z is not relevant as they do not have the authority to dictate his actions as they occurred in this case.

It ALL comes down to who initiated combat and whether Z was reasonable in fear of loss of life or great bodily injury. With only one side of the "who initiated it" story and witnesses/evidence that clearly show Z was being smacked up pretty well..........the only correct conclusion is that the state can not meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

Remember, Z need not prove anything, the state MUST prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Z committed the crime.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Z has already admitted committing a homicide, the question is whether it was justified. The fact that he shot Martin is not in dispute, there is no doubt about that. The tables are turned a hair because of that, what the prosecutor now has to prove that the homicide was not justifiable beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense are left in a position where they cannot sit on their hands and hope the state does not prove a case, and even in other circumstances that rarely works. Whether we like to admit it or not, when in those circumstances we do have to prove we are innocent.

 

[eye95]

...Remember, Z need not prove anything, the state MUST prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Z committed the crime.

Depending upon State law, the State may only need to prove that Z killed M. State law may require the burden of proof to then shift to Z to prove justification (self-defense). IANAL, but based upon what I have read so far, that would not be the case in Florida. However, again, IANAL, so I am not going to make a firm pronouncement as to whether Z will have any burden of proof in his case.

That being said, based on the information I have, Z will be able to prove self-defense pretty easily.

 

[WalkingWolf]

IMO if the media attention again goes to extremes, there are demonstrations, and calls for disobedience there is a chance Z will be found guilty. Even though I believe he is innocent, the local community will fear retribution. The longer the defense can drag it out, the better, possibly wait for hurricane season.

 

[We-the-People]

Depending upon State law, the State may only need to prove that Z killed M. State law may require the burden of proof to then shift to Z to prove justification (self-defense). IANAL, but based upon what I have read so far, that would not be the case in Florida. However, again, IANAL, so I am not going to make a firm pronouncement as to whether Z will have any burden of proof in his case.

That being said, based on the information I have, Z will be able to prove self-defense pretty easily.

The problem there (last sentence) being that the state is not trying to exclude all manner of material from trial. It appears that they are trying to prevent the defense from making the case that Martin was a thug (or wanna be), keep out testimony about prior violence, his attempts to obtain a firearm, drugs in his system, etc. It would appear they will be trying to paint him as that cute 12 year old "baby" just as the media does when they continue to use a years old picture of him instead of the images from around the time of the incident.

They also want to prevent the defense from mentioning that the jury has the power to ignore the law....i.e. jury nullification..... which is a RIGHT of the jury but one the state and the courts never (okay rarely) want to allow jurors to know about.

They also want to prevent the defense from showing that Z has no felony history.....I'd go around that by getting an officer to testify that Z was lawfully carrying and then asking what are the requirements to lawfully carry.....make the states witness say that you can't have any felonies. hehehehehe

 

[eye95]

Meh. None of that is the information that prompted me to believe that Z will be able to prove self-defense pretty easily.

The State will likely contend that the evidence they are trying to exclude would be more prejudicial than probative, which may well be true. The important evidence is the evidence that directly supports the contention that M was beating the hell outta Z's head, which is unquestionably a threat to Z's life.