Zimmerman Trial Live Feed - Day Nine

[himher 634]

I'll enjoy your all's meltdown when Zimmermann is booked into the state facilities to pay for his crime. It might be similarly hilarious to observe as the meltdown you suffered after Obama did not actually lose in a landslide but rather won in one. I'm looking really forward to it.

Some more Florida case law which reversed a conviction when the plaintiff was convicted after the jury was instructed that he must prove self-defense "beyond a reasonable doubt"

The Florida appeals court ruling:

To repeat, the law did not require defendant to prove his justification of self-defense to any standard measuring an assurance of truth. He did not have to prove the exigency of self-defense to a near certainty (reasonable doubt) or even to a mere probability (greater weight). His only burden was to offer additional facts from which it could be true, that his resort to such force could have been reasonable. (are you getting this? Clearly? Would you like to comment on or add to this?)

Under the instructions in this case—oral and written—it was possible for the jury to have reasonable doubts about his justification of self-defense but still find him guilty because he did not prove those additional facts beyond a reasonable doubt. It follows that the case must be returned for a new trial. The judgment is therefore

Reversed

Edited July 5, 2013 by himher

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.013:

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

776.041

Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776ContentsIndex.html

[himher 634]

I did not have any meltdown. Don't remember any meltdown here on this board resulting from that event.

(laughing) you had a fit dude. It was hilarious

[himher 634]

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776ContentsIndex.html

unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant

[RGinWA 816]

It's not a liberal vs. conservative issue. I just used the other event as a point of reference where we had hilarious breakdowns here on VJ.

I'm referring to the frequent usage of the ** designation. As if there is some general consensus that if you believe in freedom and personal liberty, i.e. liberal political views, that you somehow are for the conviction of innocent people?

I won't lose any sleep if he's not convicted as I didn't over OJ and I thought he was guilty.

The issue for me is HOW the system works in general. If you have money you are given a better chance at not being convicted based solely on the ability to launch a vigorous defense. Other than that I leave it up to the jury.

[RGinWA 816]

Bao: "Before I come here I spend hundreds of hours reviewing notes and photos, but no independent memory."

Because if you perform 1000's of autopsies per year to say you remember something on just one of those many cases is like me remembering some system analysis I did a year before, I refer to my own notes myself. In fact I've written documentation and read it a year later and did not remember writing it...well maybe because it was so well done.

Why is this a huge deal? His whole point is that he's basing everything he says based on notes in his report and he made notes based on those notes and had them available for answering questions. I think that's honest more than anything.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant

A couple minor scratches do not add up to that standard of "reasonable" belief. You also stopped reading that section too soon. And that is why he will be found guilty. By the way, with that response, you have just conceded that Zimmermann does not have the standard self-defense claim available to him since he is the aggressor - i.e. the one that initially provoked the use of force against himself. So the sections that you harped on about earlier do not apply to this defendant at all. That's the statute.

[Darnell 8,478]

The talking heads at CNN, just said the cross on the ME is a disaster for the prosecution and an experience ME who has testified many times should know

better.

The conclusion of the group was that should have ended their case with the TM family testimony. The said basically that they had a high not kind of warm fuzzy with the TM family, and they ruined it with all the drama of the ME debacle.

well, there's always the afternoon session.

I wonder what kind o sammiches they serve down there in Sanford ?

[Karee 4,190]

A couple minor scratches do not add up to that standard of "reasonable" belief. You also stopped reading that section too soon. And that is why he will be found guilty. By the way, with that response, you have just conceded that Zimmermann does not have the standard self-defense claim available to him since he is the aggressor - i.e. the one that initially provoked the use of force against himself. So the sections that you harped on about earlier do not apply to this defendant at all. That's the statute.

"minor scratches"

[Darnell 8,478]

Bao: "Before I come here I spend hundreds of hours reviewing notes and photos, but no independent memory."

MSG does that, alas.

Make it a MSG-free week, when studying, please.

[RGinWA 816]

well, there's always the afternoon session.

I wonder what kind o sammiches they serve down there in Sanford ?

On the trial I was on we had a choice of two places to eat. I've never been back to either place after going through both menus at least once.

I hope these jurors get some coffee at lunch. We would get sleepy at about 2:45 like clockwork.

Georgie looked bored with the autopsy photo's. I noticed he never turns away from the images, its usually how police gauge whether you committed the murder or not. But oh well...

[himher 634]

A couple minor scratches do not add up to that standard of "reasonable" belief. You also stopped reading that section too soon. And that is why he will be found guilty. By the way, with that response, you have just conceded that Zimmermann does not have the standard self-defense claim available to him since he is the aggressor - i.e. the one that initially provoked the use of force against himself. So the sections that you harped on about earlier do not apply to this defendant at all. That's the statute.

It is a big leap to imagine that under ground and pound one could NOT reasonably believe that one might be in danger of bodily injury

Please don't report use of "leap" in a VJ thread

Edited July 5, 2013 by himher

[himher 634]

"minor scratches"

Scratches and dents that nicely match up with the blunt force trauma on the victims knuckles brought up today

[himher 634]

A couple minor scratches do not add up to that standard of "reasonable" belief. You also stopped reading that section too soon. And that is why he will be found guilty. By the way, with that response, you have just conceded that Zimmermann does not have the standard self-defense claim available to him since he is the aggressor - i.e. the one that initially provoked the use of force against himself. So the sections that you harped on about earlier do not apply to this defendant at all. That's the statute.

You are correct if you remove the word "unless" from the statute however no evidence has been offered anyway to demonstrate that GZ was the aggressor

Double fail on your part to be added to your misunderstanding of the burden of proof in Florida self-defense law

[RGinWA 816]

Scratches and dents that nicely match up with the blunt force trauma on the victims knuckles brought up today

It was one injured knuckle that was slightly swollen and a scratch not able to be measured. Not knuckles injured plural.

He was hit, but its not like he had broken knuckles, hands or open wounds from hitting a solid object like a head.