Zimmerman Trial: Tired of media bias? See gun-friendly legal coverage

[RVTECH]

Anyone can follow anyone simply because they want to. You just can't grasp this fact that Zimmerman commited no crime.

Maybe so but following someone because you want to would be an irrational, dangerous act and borders on sociopathic. And to do so without considering how the person you are following may react might be a serious underestimation. I for one would know if I were being followed and would no doubt act on it very soon after recognizing I was. Maybe not aggressively or violently but I would act to break off the pursuit quickly.

 

[PiratePast40]

Maybe not aggressively or violently but I would act to break off the pursuit quickly.

And I believe that is what the state is trying to prove. The basis of their case is that Martin did not react violently to Zimmerman. Or failing that, proving that following a person in an aggressive manner is cause for violence toward that person.

 

[swoop]

Am I missing something, or would none of this had happened if Zimmerman had the sense to chill? He seems like a vigilante who was looking for a confrontation. Tried to get one repeatedly. Got one after 46 tries to get the police involved in other incidents. Killed an unarmed kid who hadn't confronted him, but whom he confronted after being told by authorities not to.

Think about who could have de-escalated the situation. Why the confrontation at all? You come at me all agro, and I'll respond too. My response to your aggression is justification to kill me, even if I'm unarmed? Please.

Typical troll!

 

[Misterbill]

Typical troll!

How is this in any way a troll posting?

TROLL:

" a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet by trying to start arguments and upset people.[1]. They may do this by posting deliberately inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]

While this sense of the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels subjective, with trolling also used to describe intentionally provocative actions and harassment outside of an online context. For example, mass media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."

This is a person who (from your post) I will intuit disagrees with your take on the facts.
That's not a troll. Not even kinda sorta. It's someone who disagrees with you.

If you have facts to argue a counterpojnt, then do so. Calling the person a "troll" while utterly ignoring his point makes you a um, TROLL.

 

[swoop]

If Martin had been white, this wouldn't have even made the news. It's dark, someone sucker punches you, and splatters your nose all over your face. You wake up to them repeatedly slamming your head against a concrete sidewalk. What are you going to do? Let him kill you? Some of you guys are trying to make this case complicated. It's simply self preservation by the use of self defense.

 

[Father of four]

Or if there were say 10+ black teens beating up a white person...O'yeah that is a norm these days and not once have I heard the blacks being charged with a hate crime. Weird.

It makes the news but no one is really saying anything because they are afraid of being called a racist or having Jessie Jackson and his crew down their necks. Weird country we live in.

 

[Father of four]

If Martin had been white, this wouldn't have even made the news.

Nothing much would have come from it. Move along America, nothing to see here.

 

[swoop]

How is this in any way a troll posting?

TROLL:

This is a person who (from your post) I will intuit disagrees with your take on the facts.
That's not a troll. Not even kinda sorta. It's someone who disagrees with you.

If you have facts to argue a counterpojnt, then do so. Calling the person a "troll" while utterly ignoring his point makes you a um, TROLL.

Maybe you should read his posts 128 & 130 before you form your opinion.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Your firearm should be used only in self defense, if you start a fight, or even get involved in one that results in you shooting someone it is not self defense. You should make every effort to remove yourself from a situation in which you might need to shoot someone, and your firearm should be a last resort for when there are no other options. Zimmerman had plenty of options, he choose to pursue someone, attempt to stop them, then shoot them when it got physical. Whether he started the physical fight or not is irrelevant.

The prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr Zimmerman started the fight. Even if he did, if there was a break in the fight from say Mr Zimmerman being knocked on the ground, and Mr Martin jumped on top of him, then he became the aggressor and Mr Zimmerman can claim self-defense. < Did I get that right Law of Self Defense?

It will be interesting to see if all the theatrics get pealed back to show the facts.

 

[Misterbill]

The defense will have to show that MARTIN had no legal justification to self defense.

This is the argument I have always made based upon Zimmerman's own self-incriminating statements.

Look, I'm naturally on Zimmerman''s side.

But in this particular case, it looks like a vigilante going after someone who objected (physically) to being intimidated.

I'm open to evidence to the contrary. But whether or not Treyvon Martin smoked pot or not seems the LEAST likely of defense tactics to work.

The real issue here is whether MARTIN felt threatened enough to use potentially deadly force against ZIMMERMAN.

It's HIS stand your ground rights at issue, not the mall ninja's.

There is no report of Martin commuting any crime whatsoever. There is only Zimmerman trying to ascertain what Martin was up to, prior to the incident.

To my mind, this puts ZIMMERMAN in the hotseat.

It may be that (at best) he merely used VERY bad judgement which resulted in a legit use of force.

That's the BEST that can be hoped for given the circumstances.

All you knee-jerk Zimmerman supporters need to look beyond the facts as reporter by Zimmerman alone. I note with some predjudie that the idea of Martin going for Zimmerman's gun was only made public MONTHS after Zimmerman's first, quite public interview. -I find that convenient.

 

[Law of Self Defense]

Hey folks,

Well, we're gearing up for Day 7 of jury selection. It's amazing to think that we've spent all this time with the jurors and we're still only doing the preliminary voir dire, limited to asking questions about pre-trial publicity. If it takes an hour to get through a jury on that basis, and sometimes it has, how long is it going to take when the lawyers are doing an unlimited voir dire?

In any case, I thought it might be useful to take a moment, lift our heads from the weeds of jury selection and specific factual matters, and take a brief 30,000 foot view of the trial.

I've posted at some length about the State's challenges in proving the charge of murder in the second degree (can't be done, in my opinion), or manslaughter.

As to manslaughter, petty much anytime you deliberately use any force against someone and they die it's going to be manslaughter--UNLESS you have some lawful justification.

And that's where Zimmerman's legal defense of self-defense will come into play.

A few days ago I put up a "self-defense backgrounder" post over at Legal Insurrection, but I don't believe I've mentioned it here so many of you might not have seen it.

The post covers the four main Florida self-defense related statutes I expect to be relevant in this case, and the statutory criminal charges in play (murder and manslaughter).

I also present a conceptual framework, "The Five Principles of the Law of Self-Defense," to guide our ongoing assessment of how successfully (or not) the State is making its case to disprove, beyond a reasonable doubt, Zimmerman's claim to have acted in lawful self-defense.

Enjoy!

Andrew
@LawSelfDefense
Facebook: Law of Self Defense

 

[Law of Self Defense]

The defense will have to show that MARTIN had no legal justification to self defense.

Clearly you have no idea of how trials work in our country. The defense doesn't "have to show" anything. The burden is on the State to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is the argument I have always made based upon Zimmerman's own self-incriminating statements.

Would you care to identify these "incriminating statements"?

Look, I'm naturally on Zimmerman''s side.

Obviously.

The real issue here is whether MARTIN felt threatened enough to use potentially deadly force against ZIMMERMAN.

Clueless. No, the REAL issue is whether a REASONABLE AND PRUDENT PERSON would have felt threatened enough to use deadly force against Zimmerman. Would you care to identify ANY conduct on Zimmerman's part that would reasonably justify a deadly force attack upon him? Surely you don't believe merely following somebody results in the follower being summarily attacked with deadly force by the person being followed?

It's HIS stand your ground rights at issue, not the mall ninja's.

This is not, and never has been, a Stand Your Ground case.

There is no report of Martin commuting any crime whatsoever.

Unless he had lawful justification for his attack upon Zimmerman, Martin was committing a violent felony, aggravated battery, upon Zimmerman when he was killed. And there is are no facts in evidence--not one--that suggests Martin had any lawful justification for his deadly force attack upon Zimmerman.

There is only Zimmerman trying to ascertain what Martin was up to, prior to the incident.

Not only is this not a crime, it was his obligation as the appointed head of his Neighborhood Watch program, and as a good neighbor.

To my mind, this puts ZIMMERMAN in the hotseat.

Uh, no.

It may be that (at best) he merely used VERY bad judgement which resulted in a legit use of force.

Mere opinion, and in any case not a violation of the law.

That's the BEST that can be hoped for given the circumstances.

Uh, no.

note with some predjudie that the idea of Martin going for Zimmerman's gun was only made public MONTHS after Zimmerman's first, quite public interview. -I find that convenient.

This is a patent falsehood.

The VERY NIGHT of the shooting, in his first written statement to the police only about 4 HOURS (not months) after the shooting, Zimmerman wrote:

At this point I felt the suspect reach for my now exposed firearm . . .

You can see a copy of that actual written statement for yourself right here: <broken link removed> .

I'll wait on your providing those incriminating statements of Zimmerman's, and the facts in evidence that justify as the reasonable sue of deadly force Martin's aggravated assault upon Zimmerman.

Andrew
@LawSelfDefense
Facebook: Law of Self Defense

 

[Law of Self Defense]

And I believe that is what the state is trying to prove. The basis of their case is that Martin did not react violently to Zimmerman. Or failing that, proving that following a person in an aggressive manner is cause for violence toward that person.

That may well be the State's intended case--we just don't know yet.

If it is, however, they are in serious trouble, as there is not a single fact in evidence--not one--that Zimmerman followed Martin in "an aggressive manner", nor is there any evidence--none--that Zimmerman acted in any way that would justify Martin's deadly force attack upon him.

I think it's going to be a tough few weeks for the State.

Andrew
@LawSelfDefense
Facebook: Law of Self Defense

 

[Law of Self Defense]

Hey folks,


Just FYI, Day 7 of jury selection has just kicked into gear. Our live, all-day coverage can be found at Legal Insurrection here, if you're interested in following along.


We'll also be doing our usual end-of-day summary of events. I'll drop a brief note when that's up, for folks who are interested.


Andrew
@LawSelfDefense
Facebook: Law of Self Defense

 

[Law of Self Defense]

Hey folks,

One of the enduring myths of the falsified public narrative promulgated by the State prosecutors and other anti-Zimmerman zealots has been that George Zimmerman "chased down" a frightened Trayvon Martin who was simply attempting to secure the safety of his destination (his father's girlfriend's home in at the Retreat at Twin Lakes neighborhood.

Is that what really happened? Or is George Zimmerman's recounting more credible and consistent with the facts in evidence?


Take a look at my latest fact-based "myth busters" installment, and decide for yourselves: <broken link removed>

Andrew
@LawSelfDefense
Facebook: Law of Self Defense

 

[orygunmike]

Hello LOSD .... I would appreciate your comments to to the following question ....

You stated that, "The defense doesn't "have to show" anything. The burden is on the State to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt."

I have been under the impression that when claiming the affirmative defense of self defense that the burden was on the defendent to demonstrate that he acted reasonably in using deadly force against another person and is therefore not guilty of homicide

Can you shed more light on this ... am I not thinking about this correctly?

 

[Law of Self Defense]

Hello LOSD .... I would appreciate your comments to to the following question ....

You stated that, "The defense doesn't "have to show" anything. The burden is on the State to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt."

I have been under the impression that when claiming the affirmative defense of self defense that the burden was on the defendent to demonstrate that he acted reasonably and is therefore not guilty of homicide. Can you shed more light on this ... am I not thinking about this correctly?

You're mistaken, but the mistake is entirely understandable. Let me explain.

For a prosecutor to obtain a guilty verdict he is supposed to convince the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, on each and every element of the crime.

A classic defense would be to counter-argue against one of those elements. Say, for example, that one of the elements of murder is that the act was done "deliberately". The defendant can argue that he committed the act, but it was not deliberate. If he undermines the prosecution's argument on that element enough to raise a reasonable doubt, he cannot be convicted.

There are other defenses, however, that do not involve attacking any of the "elements of the charge." One group of these are what were traditionally called "affirmative defenses." One example of a classic affirmative defense is the alibi defense. It couldn't have been you, because you were someplace else.

It's the nature of such a defense, however, that the person who possesses the knowledge to prove this in court is YOU. So, the law assigns the burden of persuasion (what you're mostly correctly referring to as the burden of proof) to the defense. The defendant bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, his alibi.

For most of our country's history the legal defense of self-defense was one of these classical affirmative defenses. Indeed, it's still often referred to as an affirmative defense. Over the years, however, the states have one-by-one stripped it of its "burden-shifting" property of a classic affirmative defense.

Today, the defendant bears the "burden of production" (the first half of the "burden of proof") in order to get the legal defense of self-defense raised in court at all. Once it's in, the prosecution bears the "burden of persuasion" (the second half of the "burden of proof") to DISPROVE self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

IMPORTANT: There is one jurisdictional exception to what I've written above, and that is the state of Ohio. In Ohio self-defense remains a traditional affirmative defense, and the defendant retains both the buren of production and the burden of persuasion, by a preponderance of the evidence, to prove self-defense.

Andrew
@LawSelfDefense
Facebook: Law of Self Defense

 

[USMC1911]

That would be guilty till proven innocent? Not the way our justice system works or is it???

 

[orygunmike]

Thank you LOSD .... the "burden of production" and "burden of persuasion" is a new addition to that forumla for me .... I very much appreciate the clear reply.

cheers.

 

[Law of Self Defense]

Thank you LOSD .... the "burden of production" and "burden of persuasion" is a new addition to that forumla for me .... I very much appreciate the clear reply.

cheers.

It's not the kind of thing a non-lawyer usually needs to bother with, but that's how it works:

Burden of Proof = Burden of Production & Burden of Persuasion (sometimes both fall on one party, sometimes it's split, as previously discussed.)

Andrew
@LawSelfDefense
Facebook: Law of Self Defense