The Trayvon Martin Case

[AntiChrist]

TRMS had 3 prosecutors on last night. They made great points for 2nd degree murder conviction

Z went out loaded for bear, carrying a gun, ready to shoot (to kill).

He showed clear animus towards young black males when reporting to 911: "punk assholes" " ing rs"

He was clearly the aggressor getting out of his truck to go after M.

otoh, M did nothing wrong other than Walking While Black, Young, Hoodied (in the rain).

But the prosecutors did say the prosecutors missed lots of opportunities. iow, incompetent.

Liar

"loaded for bear"

[BradLohaus]

West vs. Nelson. Child abuse might be a charge now. Somebody post the youtube of this later.

[BradLohaus]

Nelson completely hates West BTW

[BradLohaus]

And v.v

[boutons_deux]

Liar

"loaded for bear"

I was wrong, you're right. Z was "loaded for r"

[BradLohaus]

The thing about Martin using self defense is, Z gets to use it right back as long as he didn't commit a crime first.

[boutons_deux]

The thing about Martin using self defense is, Z gets to use it right back as long as he didn't commit a crime first.

it's not 2 way. M was doing nothing, saw that he was being stalked by Z (who was armed and looking for asshole punks and ing rs), "perceived (accurately) a threat" and went on Stand Your Ground offense as best defense when Z came after him on foot.

[CosmicCowboy]

it's not 2 way. M was doing nothing, saw that he was being stalked by Z (who was armed and looking for asshole punks and ing rs), "perceived (accurately) a threat" and went on Stand Your Ground offense as best defense when Z came after him on foot.

[BradLohaus]

it's not 2 way.

Racist.

[elbamba]

I just gave a link indicating that you are wrong. If you want to continue believing the contrary anyway then go right ahead.

Allow me to respond to your legal dictionary reference with Florida case law, which I have shepardized to verify that it is good case law:

Our reading of Lane v. State, supra, convinces us that Florida courts are in line with the majority holding, in essence, that HN2the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts from the state. See also, McDaniel v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 576; Burnias v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So. 2d 612. This standard broadly includes the requirement that the state prove that the defendant did not act in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Bolin v. State, 297 So.2d 2d 317, 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).

In a self-defense case, it is our opinion that a general instruction covering the burden of proving guilt beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt, which rests upon [**7] the state, is sufficient. Bolin v. State, 297 So.2d 317, 320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).

The jury instructions in this case correctly instructed the jury as to the elements of self-defense. See Jones v. State, 13 So. 3d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (holding that the standard jury instruction on the justifiable use of deadly force did not shift the burden of proof to the defendant); cf. Fields v. State, 988 So. 2d 1185, 1190 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). Mosansky v. State, 33 So. 3d 756, 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

[elbamba]

Darrin once again failing to demonstrate how.

Martin runs away, Zimmerman follows him against the dispatchers recommendation, gets out of his car for a reason that he lied to cover up, and then went 12 yards away where the confrontation took place. You take from that Martin caused the confrontation huh?

You are misstating the facts. Martin runs away, Zimmerman exits the car and follows. The dispatcher then asks "are you following him" ZImmerman says yes, Dispatcher then says, "we don't need you to follow him". There is no order and reasonable minds could disagree as to if this is even a recommendation. He is simply telling Zimmerman that he does not need to follow Martin. Zimmerman says okay and tells the dispatcher where to meet him.

Facts matter and you should at least get them right.

[elbamba]

what i been preachin' this entire time:

What about Martin's right to 'stand his ground?'

(CNN) -- Like many people, I've been riveted by the George Zimmerman trial. I call it "the George Zimmerman trial" because that's what it is, but the more I watch, the more I wonder: Should it be renamed "the Trayvon Martin trial?"
I'm not just talking about some of the media's tabloid-like focus on Martin's background, his personal history, his school records and -- outside the courtroom -- the toxicology report. I'm talking about an aspect of the case that never comes up in the media coverage, one that I would argue is key.
This murder trial, in and out of the courtroom, has been boiled down to one question: Was Zimmerman in fear for his life and thus justified in defending himself by shooting and killing Martin?
It has been framed this way -- in terms of Zimmerman's mortal fear -- since the shooting in 2012.
Some people have forgotten that Zimmerman was not even arrested initially. It took more than a month for the special prosecutor to bring the second-degree murder charge. And if not for mass protests across the country, he might not be the defendant in a murder trial at all.
The question that has not surfaced in the courtroom -- the elephant in the room -- is this: Did Martin fear for his life after being followed and confronted by a stranger while going to the store to buy candy and a soft drink? Was he, Martin, justified in standing his ground and defending himself when this stranger, an apparent stalker, approached him in a threatening manner?
Zimmerman didn't identify himself and never said he was part of the neighborhood watch group.
Think about it: We're told over and over that if Zimmerman was afraid of Martin. According to Florida law, he had the right to put a bullet in the chamber of his concealed handgun, get out of his car after being told not to by the 911 dispatcher and follow and confront Martin and shoot him to death.
At the same time, we are told that Martin, who had far greater reason to fear Zimmerman, practically and for reasons of American history, did not have the right to confront his stalker, stand his ground and defend himself, including by using his fists. We are told that this was entirely unjustified and by doing so, Martin justified his own execution.
The phrases "stand your ground" and "self-defense" have been repeated endlessly by anchors, pundits, analysts and experts, but rarely applied to Martin.
How could this be? Why is this other question ignored? Surely it will come up as we approach the trial, I thought. But it hasn't. What's going on here? How can the Florida law apply only to Zimmerman and not to Martin?
I remembered the sharp, sometimes bitter commentary provoked by e Lee's 1989 film "Do the Right Thing," particularly in reaction to its climactic scenes, when the police murder a black teenager and Lee's character throws a trash can through the window of the white-owned pizza place.
Years after the movie came out, Lee told an interviewer, "White people still ask me why Mookie threw the can through the window. ...Twenty years later, they're still asking me that."
"No black person ever, in 20 years, no person of color has ever asked me why," he said.
This speak volumes about race and power relations in this country.
Here's what I think: Assuming Martin did engage Zimmerman physically, perhaps if the teen had hit back a little bit harder, perhaps if he had been able to prevent Zimmerman from grabbing his concealed and loaded gun and perhaps if witnesses had come to Martin's aid, then maybe he would be alive today. That's speculation.
One thing I feel sure of is that if Martin, in fear for his life, had used Zimmerman's own gun to shoot and possibly kill his attacker, when the police arrived on the scene, they would not have failed to charge him with murder.
Why hasn't the prosecution team used Florida law to argue strongly for Martin's right of self-defense, his right to stand his ground against a stalker? Why not turn the tables on Zimmerman's exclusive claim to that argument?
It will be interesting to see whether this question even gets posed for the jury at all. It certainly will be front and center as this case is tried by the jury of history. And future generations will likely puzzle over how the term "racial profiling" could have been banned by the judge before the trial even began.
This country's racial history, the list of names, like Sean Bell, Amadou Diallo, Oscar Grant and other victims of "deadly force" by the police—these represent an even bigger Elephant in the Room.
They may have been ruled irrelevant in the courtroom, but they are certainly relevant to those who seek justice in this society.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/opinio...html?hpt=hp_t4

I don't know that anyone will object if Martin raises a stand your ground defense in his trial.

[CosmicCowboy]

I don't know that anyone will object if Martin raises a stand your ground defense in his trial.

[Fabbs]

Is Judge Nelsons blocking Trabonz cell phone info automatic appeal material in the event the 6 give an emo verdict?
Now the *child abuse* scam. Cant wait to see if Nelson lets this in.

[BradLohaus]

ROFL emo verdict. What did O'mara say after the opening? "People say I look like Joel Osteen, but the state is talking like him."

Get ready for that x10.

[boutons_deux]

SANFORD, Florida (Reuters) - Jurors in the second-degree murder trial of George Zimmerman may also consider convicting him of the lesser charge of manslaughter in the shooting death of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, a judge ruled on Thursday.

SANFORD, Florida (Reuters) - The judge presiding over the murder trial of George Zimmerman denied a defense request on Thursday that jurors be instructed the neighborhood watch volunteer did nothing illegal in deciding to follow Trayvon Martin, before the encounter in which he shot and killed the unarmed black teenager.

[CosmicCowboy]

Wow. Look at how Reuters worded that.

[Big Empty]

SANFORD, Florida (Reuters) - Jurors in the second-degree murder trial of George Zimmerman may also consider convicting him of the lesser charge of manslaughter in the shooting death of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, a judge ruled on Thursday.

SANFORD, Florida (Reuters) - The judge presiding over the murder trial of George Zimmerman denied a defense request on Thursday that jurors be instructed the neighborhood watch volunteer did nothing illegal in deciding to follow Trayvon Martin, before the encounter in which he shot and killed the unarmed black teenager.

i like that . my thoughts are he gets off but the cnn post a few post above is my entire feeling on the trial.

[Creepn]

Trayvon wasn't unarmed they say. He was armed with the Earth.

[CosmicCowboy]

Trayvon wasn't unarmed they say. He was armed with the Earth.

Lots of things can be a deadly weapon including a concrete sidewalk. You are just being stupid now.

[boutons_deux]

Trayvon wasn't unarmed they say. He was armed with the Earth.

he was armed with superior black athleticism versus a fat, lying, unathletic half-Hispanic macho punk, iow, lessness with a gun.

[BradLohaus]

he was armed with superior black athleticism versus a fat, lying, unathletic half-Hispanic macho punk, iow, lessness with a gun.

Racist.

[BradLohaus]

BDLR? State should've went went with the guy who gave the opening.

[boutons_deux]

Racist.

yep, the entire event is launched by Z's vigilante racism against young black males, as asshole punks and ing rs.

[CosmicCowboy]

3rd degree not allowed. BDLR doing close.