Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/21/13 12:55 AM, Feoric wrote:

At 6/21/13 12:45 AM, Memorize wrote: So if the prosecution charges 2nd degree murder, they don't have to prove that?

Sure they do, but he's not talking about the prosecution. The word 'defense' is mentioned 10 times in his post. The defense has to prove that Zimmerman acted lawfully in according to Florida's self defense laws. The prosecution will make the argument that he did not.

So what happens if neither side can prove their case?

Do you go with "better safe than sorry" or "beyond a reasonable doubt?"

At 6/21/13 12:58 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: just read the news they are disallowing the evidence of Martins Drug use, Facebook, Cellphone pictures and School Suspensions.

Just like how the jury will never see evidence that ZImmerman allegedly sexually abused his cousin, attacked a cop and his girlfriend at the time, prepared to flee the country, got fired from his job as a bouncer when he beat up a woman, and harassed a coworker with racist comments.

At 6/21/13 01:05 AM, Memorize wrote: So what happens if neither side can prove their case?

Do you go with "better safe than sorry" or "beyond a reasonable doubt?"

In that case there is a hung jury and a mistrial is declared.

At 6/21/13 01:17 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: allegedly and has nothing to do with the trial.

The same goes for everything else mentioned, including Trayvon smoking pot and "looking hard" on Facebook.

At 6/21/13 01:23 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: but he had Marijuana is his system at the time of his autopsy.

And a bullet lodged in his heart.

At 6/21/13 03:27 AM, Ceratisa wrote: Self defense can result in someone being dead, this isn't a new concept.

I'm not sure what your point is. The question is whether or not Zimmerman acted in self defense. That's why there is a trial.

At 6/21/13 01:19 AM, Feoric wrote:

At 6/21/13 01:17 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: allegedly and has nothing to do with the trial.

The same goes for everything else mentioned, including Trayvon smoking pot and "looking hard" on Facebook.

Including his penchant for regularly getting into fights?

At 6/21/13 01:10 AM, Feoric wrote: In that case there is a hung jury and a mistrial is declared.

This isn't true. There is a specific order of the burdens.

The prosecution first has the burden to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Once that has been done the defense must prove the affirmative defense (though I am not clear on level of proof they need).

If the prosecution cannot prove their case, the defense does not matter. As the defense only applies after the prosecution has proved their case a losing prosecution case would still lose regardless of the strength of the affirmative defense.

If the prosecution proves its case and the affirmative defense fails, the prosecution wins.

At 6/21/13 10:49 AM, Memorize wrote: Including his penchant for regularly getting into fights?

It's an evidentiary issue, not an issue of relevance. There are VERY specific rules about when character evidence can be brought into a case. The biggest of all being that the character evidence cannot be used to say "see they've acted like this before, therefore they acted like this again."

On top of that, Zimmermans' attorneys are smarter than the shame the victim with regard to violent character, because that opens the door to a whole bucket-full of evidence regarding his own violent temper.

At 6/21/13 07:03 PM, Ceratisa wrote: The thing that bothers me is, unless TM was the aggressor why is the only injury other than a single gunshot wound to the chest are his bruised knuckles?

What bruised knuckles? The autopsy report is right here, show me where it mentions this. Zimmerman said that he was punched in the face 25-30 times and was fearing for his life. Trayvon had a single 1/4" x 1/8" abrasion under knuckle. None of Zimmerman's DNA was found on Trayvon's hands or on the cuffs of his hoodie. That doesn't bother you?

It seems fairly obvious to me that he didn't openly have his gun out since that itself is illegal in Florida.

So is second degree murder.

At 6/21/13 07:43 PM, Feoric wrote: What bruised knuckles? The autopsy report is right here, show me where it mentions this. Zimmerman said that he was punched in the face 25-30 times and was fearing for his life. Trayvon had a single 1/4" x 1/8" abrasion under knuckle. None of Zimmerman's DNA was found on Trayvon's hands or on the cuffs of his hoodie. That doesn't bother you?

Are you really going to try to deny that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman striking his head? That's like the thing that most of the witnesses actually witnessed.

So is second degree murder.

Shooting in self defense isn't though.

At 6/21/13 08:23 PM, RacistBassist wrote: Are you really going to try to deny that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman striking his head? That's like the thing that most of the witnesses actually witnessed.

I'm saying the physical evidence doesn't support his claim, not that an attack never took place. Unless Martin had fists made out of iridium then I don't see how that tiny abrasion is consistent with Zimmerman's version of events.

And honestly, I really don't care about witness testimony in this case as much as I do the physical evidence, especially since this occurred at night. Some witnesses said Martin was on top of Zimmerman, some say Zimmerman was on top of Martin. It doesn't really matter to me, honestly, because there is no way Martin could have gotten that gunshot wound if he really was on top.

Shooting in self defense isn't though.

Even if Trayvon instigated the fight, Zimmerman was using deadly force inappropriately, since his life wasn't in danger based on all the evidence I've seen that's available thus far.

At 6/21/13 08:51 PM, Feoric wrote: I'm saying the physical evidence doesn't support his claim, not that an attack never took place. Unless Martin had fists made out of iridium then I don't see how that tiny abrasion is consistent with Zimmerman's version of events.

You ever been in a fight before, or witness them? I've seen people literally ground and pound a face into a distorted oblivion, to the point of the person being unrecognizable, without them getting a mark on their hand. If you can throw a proper punch and did hit the hardest points of the head or something like the ground, your fists should come out relatively unscathed with little problem.

And honestly, I really don't care about witness testimony in this case as much as I do the physical evidence, especially since this occurred at night. Some witnesses said Martin was on top of Zimmerman, some say Zimmerman was on top of Martin. It doesn't really matter to me, honestly, because there is no way Martin could have gotten that gunshot wound if he really was on top.

So one witness who can't see that good is unsure of who it is, while the rudimentary pieces of their stories remain constant, and with one witness going from not sure, to, after the event blew up, saying it was Zimmerman on top? I wonder if this lady has any connection to the prosecuting lawyers like that one kid whose mom changed his story does.

Even if Trayvon instigated the fight, Zimmerman was using deadly force inappropriately, since his life wasn't in danger based on all the evidence I've seen that's available thus far.

Let me start slamming your head onto concrete and see how long it takes you to feel threatened.

At 6/21/13 09:01 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Explain why that is the case?

I assume you're referring to the gunshot wound. This goes back to the autopsy: the gun was fired from an intermediate range. From the article:

"Intermediate range (6-8 inches to 1.5-3.5 feet): This is too far for soot to travel so there is no fouling, but hot fragments of burning propellant (gunpowder) follow the bullet to the victim and produce stippling by causing pinpoint burns around the entrance wound. Of the two types of propellant, "ball" and "flake," the former will produce stippling at a greater distance."

There's no way the gun was fired while Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman even if that's what transpired that night, it would have been a point blank shot if that were the case. There were at least 8 inches of space, enough to point the gun and shoot. It's highly implausible, if not impossible, to shoot someone in a way that's consistent with Trayvon's gunshot wounds when said person is actively trying to murder you by bashing your head into concrete from an intermediate range.

That flies right in the face of statements from Zimmerman himself; he described himself firing upward into Martin while being pinned to the ground. It is much more likely that they were both standing apart from each other from an unknown distance (but a close enough distance to leave powder tattooing). If Martin had pinned Zimmerman to the ground, the gunshot would have been too close to have any powder tattooing and the bullet would have traveled at an upward angle through Martin's body. The ballistic evidence shows that Martin was shot at an angle you would expect to see if someone of Zimmerman's height pointed a gun at someone of Martin's height and pulled the trigger while standing up at an intermediate range. This is the strongest piece of evidence the prosecution has, and it's to the contrary of Zimmerman's statements.

and Explain why Zimmerman had 2 small lacerations on the back of his head, 2 black eyes a broken nose and a minor back injury?

I never said there wasn't an altercation. At one point, the back of Zimmerman's head struck something with enough force to scratch it. He was also hit in the face, giving him a bloody and swollen nose, not broken.

You don't even need to get punched to respond with force.

The problem with this is Zimmerman's testimony. He didn't say "I shot him because I thought he was going to start hitting me" - in Zimmerman's story Trayvon jumped him, started smashing his head into the concrete and said "You're going to die tonight!" The physical evidence should at least show that he made some recourse to non-lethal force before using his gun. And it does not.

At 6/21/13 09:06 PM, RacistBassist wrote: You ever been in a fight before, or witness them? I've seen people literally ground and pound a face into a distorted oblivion, to the point of the person being unrecognizable, without them getting a mark on their hand. If you can throw a proper punch and did hit the hardest points of the head or something like the ground, your fists should come out relatively unscathed with little problem.

That is complete and utter bullshit. If any person punches a person 20-30 times MMA style as hard as they possibly can you are absolutely going to expect to see more than a fucking 1/4" x 1/8" abrasion under their knuckle, are you joking? You're also at the least going to expect to see the other person's DNA on your hands if they're being beaten to an unrecognizable pulp.

So one witness who can't see that good is unsure of who it is, while the rudimentary pieces of their stories remain constant, and with one witness going from not sure, to, after the event blew up, saying it was Zimmerman on top? I wonder if this lady has any connection to the prosecuting lawyers like that one kid whose mom changed his story does.

Yeah I'm sure there is a conspiracy here that the defense just somehow doesn't know about while the rest of us do. This way, even if Zimmerman loses his case in court, he was "a dead man from the start."

Let me start slamming your head onto concrete and see how long it takes you to feel threatened.

Okay, I'll cosplay as a black teenager so that it's more enjoyable for you. Then we can compare and contrast my injuries and the forensic evidence in this experiment. I guarantee you it won't be the same, because Zimmerman is full of shit.

At 6/21/13 11:08 PM, Feoric wrote: I never said there wasn't an altercation. At one point, the back of Zimmerman's head struck something with enough force to scratch it. He was also hit in the face, giving him a bloody and swollen nose, not broken.

Never mind this, I have no idea where I got this from. His nose was definitely broken.

At 6/22/13 12:55 AM, Ceratisa wrote: But that is the issue, he doesn't NEED to make a non lethal attempt at anything if he feels himself endangered. It doesn't even matter if he was pinned at the time if he was still being assaulted. It matters who started the altercation.

Yeah, that's a pretty big issue in this one. If Zimmerman started it, then his self defense was a result of his own instigation and shouldn't have been used, but of course if TM did it, then Zimmerman had every right to use deadly force.

Zimmerman's right to self defense is, to me, undeniable if TM started to throw the punches first. Zimmerman was getting wailed on punch after punch where he couldn't retreat and might have been bludgeoned to death or at least half to death if TM kept going at his head like that. If TM started it, Zimmerman's self defense was completely justified.

What the real shame might be is if Zimmerman's self defense IS confirmed. His life will have been completely wrecked just to prove a point. Hell, the only job he might get is one associated with the NRA. And he'll still get death threats and hate mail every day for years. Just like OJ man, people will continue to believe what they want despite any court ruling even if they weren't there. And he'll be hated for it regardless.

At 6/22/13 12:55 AM, Ceratisa wrote: But that is the issue, he doesn't NEED to make a non lethal attempt at anything if he feels himself endangered. It doesn't even matter if he was pinned at the time if he was still being assaulted. It matters who started the altercation.

Legally, no, that's not true at all. He's not arguing stand your ground, he's claiming self defense. Zimmerman had no legal right to use deadly force unless he tried to disengage from the area, such as trying to run away. If Martin prevented him from doing so while escalating the situation to the point that it's reasonable to believe grievous bodily harm or loss of life could happen, only then would deadly force be valid. That is going to be a very hard thing to prove given the evidence.

At 6/22/13 05:43 AM, Feoric wrote:

Legally, no, that's not true at all. He's not arguing stand your ground, he's claiming self defense. Zimmerman had no legal right to use deadly force unless he tried to disengage from the area, such as trying to run away. If Martin prevented him from doing so while escalating the situation to the point that it's reasonable to believe grievous bodily harm or loss of life could happen, only then would deadly force be valid. That is going to be a very hard thing to prove given the evidence.

Modern day liberal logic: The law should exist to protect those who initiate force rather than those on the receiving end.

At 6/22/13 05:43 AM, Feoric wrote: Zimmerman had no legal right to use deadly force unless he tried to disengage from the area, such as trying to run away.

Actually that's not true in most jurisdictions now. Most have dictated that if you beliee you're in life threatening danger or in danger of serious injury (like losing a limb or organ) you have no requirement to retreat.

Also, I read the Florida law a while back and I remember (though it is a bit fuzzy) that Florida explicitly states that the defender not need to attempt to retreat in order to use defense.

At 6/22/13 03:19 PM, Memorize wrote: Modern day liberal logic: The law should exist to protect those who initiate force rather than those on the receiving end.

Actually, the goal of the retreat doctrine is to lower the amount of death that occurs. If you force a defender to try to retreat before they are allowed to take a life you are (thoeretically) more likely to have less deaths overall.