In Zimmerman Trial, Prosecution Witnesses Bolster Self-Defense Claims[NY Times]

[hack89]

As the trial of George Zimmerman enters its second week on Monday, it appears that the prosecution is struggling to meet the burden of proving him guilty of second-degree murder, legal analysts said.

The defense scored a number of points during cross-examination. It showcased Mr. Zimmerman’s injuries, including a “likely” broken nose, as a physician assistant testified. The first police officer to arrive on the scene said that Mr. Zimmerman’s back and jeans were wet and that his jacket had bits of grass, suggesting he was on his back at some point. The officer also said that Mr. Zimmerman told him he had been yelling for help.

In addition, the resident with the best view of the altercation that night said the person “with lighter skin color” in red or white was being straddled on the ground by someone wearing dark colors. (Mr. Zimmerman was wearing a red jacket.) The witness further described a “ground and pound.” The person on the top, he said, was moving his arms in a downward motion (though the witness added he did not see actual punches).

And the jury learned that Ms. Jeantel’s first interview with Bernie de la Rionda, the chief prosecutor, took place in the home of Mr. Martin’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, with Ms. Fulton sitting next to her. The setting, Ms. Jeantel acknowledged, skewed her story, which was likely to dent her credibility.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/us/in-zimmerman-trial-prosecution-witnesses-bolster-self-defense-claims.html?_r=1&

The state overreached - they should have gone with a manslaughter charge. They have a lot of catching up to do in order to convict him.

[KurtNYC]

1. "self defense" because the guy with the gun is always supposed to win?

People who have never had their life threatened by someone with a gun tend to believe that a gun is magical and just makes everyone else do exactly what the gun holder says. Too much TV. I doesn't happen that way. Sometimes the guy without the gun panics, the adrenaline flows and self preservation takes over.

Zim had many opportunities to stop his pursuit and shooting. TM did not go out looking for a fight and was never in control of the situation. His friend planted the thought in his head that Zim was "a rapist" -- is anyone else in TM's situation just supposed to surrender to a creepy stranger with a gun and hope for the best?

[hack89]

2. Of course Zimmerman is responsible for what happened

but in a court of law he starts with a strong presumption of innocence. The state has to do a better job of making their case. Either they overreached and do not have adequate evidence to prove 2nd degree murder or they are lousy lawyers. In either case, they need to step up their game.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

6. You're forgetting the lesser included charge of manslaughter.

People keep obsessing that the state somehow "overcharged" Zimmerman with the 2nd Degree Murder charge (which does require proof of a callous disregard for human life but does not require proof of premeditation like 1st Degree does) but forget that even if Zimmerman is acquitted of 2nd Degree Murder he could still be convicted of Manslaughter (which merely requires that Zimmerman reckless actions caused Martin's death.)

There's a fine line between callous disregard for life and recklessness, but arguably both are still on the table. The state does not have to prove that Zimmerman set out to kill Trayvon.

An example where the state did overcharge was the Casey Anthony murder case, where she was charged with 1st Degree, premeditated capital murder. Not that Casey didn't lie to investigators (to which she was convicted) and that her actions weren't suspicious and stunk to high heavens. However, in that case, the remains of Caylee had deteriorated so much when they were found that it was impossible to get an exact cause of death. Could have been intentional murder, could have been recklessness, could have been negligence, might even have been totally natural--it just wasn't clear. For whatever reason, the state decided to proceed with 1st Degree murder and make the argument that Casey intentionally killed her daughter because she wanted to resume her old partying lifestyle. That certainly was a plausible argument to make, but without an actual cause of death, it was all just speculation.

Of course, even a manslaughter conviction was hard to get for Anthony because the state had pretty much locked itself into the story that Casey intentionally killed her daughter and that was the story they chose to present to the jury. Arguing that Caylee died due to some act of recklessness or negligence and then Casey covered it up (also quite a plausible theory) was something of an afterthought after the state had spent so much effort claiming Caylee's death was 1st degree premeditated murder. (Not to mention that even in light of manslaughter, the state still couldn't definitively show the cause of death, so that still would have been a major obstacle to overcome even with a lower bar of culpability).

Here, the question of whether Zimmerman acted merely recklessly or with callous disregard for Travyon's life is a much closer question. Plus we are dealing with a smaller set of disputed facts. Unlike Casey Anthony (and OJ Simpson) we aren't dealing with a Defendant who is denying committing the homicide. So there's no talk of alibis or whodunit--it's a straight whydunit.

So all the concerns that Zimmerman was "overcharged" or that this case is the next Casey Anthony/OJ Simpson case is overwrought, IMHO. For now, let's trust the legal system.

[hack89]

8. That could get tricky for the government

Arguing for manslaughter while not undermining a murder conviction could be hard - it might leave the jury with the idea that the government has no confidence in their case.

I have no problem with a manslaughter conviction - I prefer a murder conviction but both will put him in prison.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

10. That was the problem with the Casey Anthony case. It's not really the case here.

There's a major difference between 1st Degree premeditated intentional murder and reckless homicide (manslaughter).

There's not nearly as much of a difference between 2nd Degree depraved heart murder and reckless homicide (manslaughter).

[KurtNYC]

9. Zim admits to shooting him so the presumption of innocence is a little different here

It boils down to why.

The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zim acted in a manner of recklessness and without regard to human life.

[hack89]

12. There are justified homicides

so while he shot TM, he has the initial presumption that it was a justified shooting.

[uponit7771]

24. So the burden of proof is on ZIMMERMAN to justify it NOT the prosecution

[joeglow3]

29. That is NOT how the court system works

And that is a damn good thing. While it may not work out in this case, it would be MUCH worse in the bigger picture if your view were true.

[hack89]

35. No - that is not how it works

Z has to provide a prima facia case of self defense - which means he does not have to prove self defense, merely provide facts from which a reasonable case for self defense can be made. The bar is deliberately a low one. The burden of proof to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self defense never shifts from the state to the defendant.

The State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Z did not act in self defense.

Here is a state of Florida appeals court ruling that explains burden of proof in self defense cases.


http://www.5dca.org/opinions/opin2012/042312/5d10-2011.op.pdf

[dkf]

49. Who determines if the defendant has made a prima facie showing of self defense?

From your link- "Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing of self- defense, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense."

Is this a two part question for the jury?

[hack89]

50. Not sure. I suspect the process is tilted towards the defendant

I doubt that anyone formally determines that an adequate prima facie showing of self defense has been made but rather that the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense has not met the requirements of self defense. In other words, the defense claims self defense and the state proves otherwise.

[dkf]

52. Also from your link, self defense needs aggravated battery.

I would think the injuries already confirm this?

[PotatoChip]

56. Personally, I wouldn't think so.

An (unconfirmed) broken nose, and some head lacerations? Even if we take Z's word as to how it happened, do these injuries rise to the level of great bodily harm? It doesn't look that way to me, imho.

784.045?Aggravated battery.—

(1)(a)?A person commits aggravated battery who, in committing battery:
1.?Intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement; or

2.?Uses a deadly weapon.

(b)?A person commits aggravated battery if the person who was the victim of the battery was pregnant at the time of the offense and the offender knew or should have known that the victim was pregnant.

(2)?Whoever commits aggravated battery shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

History.—s. 1, ch. 70-63; s. 732, ch. 71-136; s. 20, ch. 74-383; s. 10, ch. 75-298; s. 3, ch. 88-344.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.045.html

[madokie]

3. I'm sorry but this was murder in the first degree

not manslaughter as you want me to believe. this cretin murdered this kid, all for being black best I can tell. No amount of hand waving by you or anyone else will change that. I might add he will be found guilty too. That would be my bet anyway.
If you watched the opening statement by the prosecutor you would know that the murderer had a live round in the chamber during this whole time with his clip/magazine full. He was a murderer looking for a murder when he set out that night

[hack89]

4. I am not the one who charged him with 2nd degree murder - the state of Florida did.

I think he is guilty of 2nd degree murder. But I am not a murder - it appears some legal experts disagree with both of us.

[madokie]

5. didn't say you were

[GreenStormCloud]

7. Having a round chamberr does not prove premeditation.

Having a round chambered is standard for people who carry semi-autos. Having a full magazine is also standad. Why have a gun only partially loaded?

[madokie]

13. No its not

responsible gun owners keep the chamber free of a round to help to keep from having an accident.
I don't know of anyone who keeps a live round in the chamber, even the hunters I know. None of the CC I know do.
I'm glad I don't know you or aren't around you when you're in possession of a gun thats for sure.

[loli phabay]

15. no, of you carry for self defence you hsve the gun ready yo fire

Never met anyone who Carries without one in the chamber, as it effectually makes the gun useless.

[madokie]

16. LOL

I'm glad I'm not around you in person then.

[GreenStormCloud]

32. Every day that you are out in public, you pass by people like me.

Your page and your name proclaims that you are in Oklahoma. The gun culture there is almost identical to Texas, although OK allows open carry, Texas doesn't - yet. Ask some Oklahoma Concealed Weapon License (CWL) about carrying a round chambered, then get back with me.

[madokie]

36. I know several

I'm getting back to you right now
None of them have a round chambered

[GreenStormCloud]

38. You have checked with CWL instructors?

Sorry, I don't believe you.

[GreenStormCloud]

18. All hunters I know have a round chambered, safety on, finger off the trigger.

Chambering a round makes noise and slows down the shot. The deer, or other game, will be running by the time you are ready to shoot. Proper hunting safety is round chambered, safety on, finger off the trigger. I have been using guns since 1957 and have never had a negligent discharge.

If I ever have to use my gun in self-defense, I am going to need it in a real hurry. I won't be able to say to the criminal, "Wait a bit while I rack the slide." Further, I may not have both hands available to be able to rack the slide. Everybody I know that carrys a gun, including law enforcement officers, has a round in the chamber.

BTW - Revolvers always have a round chambered, because there is no slide to rack.

[madokie]

19. Nope on both counts

maybe around you that is but not here around me.
Nor was it when I was in harms way either. Out of respect for our fellow soldier we never chambered a round until needed. You are way way off base.

[GreenStormCloud]

23. I was in Vietnam too.

When I went over we were still using the M-14. We carried cocked and locked. Ask any cop if he has a round in the chamber. How would you carry a revolver with no round in the chamber?

[premium]

27. Notice you're a Nam vet,

In the bush, did you keep a round in the chamber of your M-16? Or did you wait until contact with the enemy?
Unless we were in the rear or in camp, I kept a round in the chamber of both my M-16 and my .45, everyone in our unit did.
It's standard procedure for a round to be chambered and a full mag. for those that carry.

When I was a USFS Ranger, I kept a round chambered when on duty at all times, if I needed to use my weapon, I may not have had time to chamber the round and bring the weapon on target.

[madokie]

30. Nope

no one around me did either.

[premium]

40. So you and your unit waited until contact to chamber your weapons and give

away your position? (shakes head in disbelief)
Then you're the exception rather than the norm.

[loli phabay]

31. whenever I rack any weapon I immediatly top of my mag

Same as I do when I fire a weapon, I top off as soon as possible.

[premium]

41. That's the smart thing to do

especially in a combat zone.

[GreenStormCloud]

45. I don't believe him at all.

He doesn't fit with my own Vietnam experience, nor with that of an vet that I know, nor do I know anybody who carries a gun with an empty chamber.

If he tried to work a bolt the deer is going to hear the click of the bolt lever coming up and will be off and running before he can finish chambering the round. If he tries to hunt quail and has to rack the slide before he can shoot the quail (or pheasant) will be gone.

[premium]

48. I don't either.

If he waited until contact with the enemy to chamber a round, then he's just given away his position, who does that in combat? Nobody I ever met.

[Pelican]

34. Not sure if serious...

What the hell is the point of a gun without a magazine and a bullet in the chamber?

If you have time to fiddlefuck with all that, then odds are you have time to get outta dodge. (Home invasion scenarios notwithstanding)

[madokie]

39. WTF

fuck this shit.
I'm out of here, I don't care to discuss this any further.

[Pelican]

44. WTF indeed...

Maybe you can just pistol whip them for all the good a gun without a bullet will do you...

[hobbit709]

11. My definition of self defense doesn't include starting the ruckus to begin with.

GZ went looking for trouble.

[hack89]

14. Unfortunately Florida law sees it differently than you do. nt

[madokie]

17. No it doesn't

your interpretation maybe
You live in a dream world

[hack89]

20. Florida law allows the aggressor to use deadly force in self defense in specific situations

which is what Z is claiming.

Whether or not Z has a valid argument is one thing - arguing that Florida law doesn't say what it says is something completely different.

[madokie]

21. Damn sure not in this situation

the cretin is a murderer

[hack89]

25. I take it you have not read the law. nt

[madokie]

26. I take it you don't understand the law

[hack89]

37. It is in black and white.

if TM was pounding Z's head into the ground and Z feared for his life then Florida law says he had the right to self defense.

[RGR375]

53. you are wrong

Please read Florida statute 776.041 use of force by the aggressor. Now i have said before once zimmerman was on the ground getting beat he was put into situation that was life threatening. Check your state laws, most states allow the shooting of an unarmed person in similar situations. Golden rule keep your hands off other people.

[uponit7771]

22. ZIMMERMAN TRAINED MMA 3 TIMES A WEEK! I don't believe they left that little tid bit out...

...the witness they're talking about said he saw an MMA style fight and MMA style blows but saw no punches land

[pintobean]

28. This is the most bizarre trial I've ever watched.

With almost every witness, the prosecution seems to be setting the stage for the defense. It reminds me of "Eight Men Out".

[premium]

33. Hell, this keeps up

and the defense won't even have to put the Zman on the stand, the prosecution is making Zman's case for him.

[Little Star]

43. Did you miss Casey Anthony? lol

[winstars]

46. Dig It!!! nt.

[Faux pas]

47. So gz is the only one allowed self defense?

Why didn't Trayvon have the right to self defense? gz is a racist asshole who's gonna get away with it.

[hack89]

51. No - that is why the issue of who threw the first blow is so important to this case.

the law is pretty specific - nothing Z did up to the actual physical altercation was illegal. The crime starts with the fight.

[RGR375]

54. A god given right

Everybody has that right. What some people do not understand is that in some situations you can go from being the victim to being the aggressor by pushing it to far. If that happens the the other person just gained the right to use deadly force. Please read Florida statute 776.041 use of force by the aggressor.

[magical thyme]

55. the resident with the best view that night recanted on re-direct

That reads as a very biased take, imo. The resident "with the best view" initially told police he couldn't tell who was on top. It wasn't until later that he started claiming Zimmerman was on top. My understanding from an article I read last Friday in the MSM (was at work, so couldn't post at the time) is that on re-direct, he admitted he really had no idea who was on top and he amended his "ground and pound" and "mma" comments to "downward motions." And since Zimmerman was the one with mma training, that points back toward Zimmerman on top at some point.

I'm curious about what makes everybody so sure he had the best view. Being closest doesn't not ensure the best view, in particular after dark the lighting can vary significantly, depending on what lights are on and where. And what about the other witnesses who definitively saw Zimmerman on top and the man on top get up immediately after the gunshot? Does their testimony not count?

"The officer also said that Mr. Zimmerman told him he had been yelling for help." That's nothing new. We know Zimmerman's been claiming to be the one yelling for help since day one.

We also know he was on his back at some point.

[hack89]

57. Jonathan Good always said that Trayvon was on top

Here is his initial statement to the cops

“Yeah I pretty much heard somebody yelling outside. I wasn’t sure if it was, you know, a fight or something going wrong. So I opened my blinds and I see kind of like a person out there. I didn’t know if it was a dog attack or something. So I open my door. It was a black man with a black hoodie on top of the other, either a white guy or now I found out I think it was a Hispanic guy with a red sweatshirt on the ground yelling out help! And I tried to tell them, get out of here, you know, stop or whatever, and then one guy on top in the black hoodie was pretty much just throwing down blows on the guy kind of MMA-style.”

On redirect the state got him to admit that he did not see blows actually striking the face of the guy on the bottom. But Good never said that Zimmerman was on top.