Travon Martin Trial

Following someone to the point that creates a "well founded fear" is a crime.

The question in this case is whether (a) TM was in fear; and (b) was the fear well-founded.

Sent from my HTC One GE using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

Well TDK, you'll have plenty of time to point out silly things like this...



































...WHEN YOU'RE LIVIN' IN A VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER!

 

What does having the right to be somewhere have to do with chasing someone?

And, if this is about the right of both of them to be there, which one took actions as if the other wasn't allowed to be there?

I still maintain, this shouldn't be a "beyond reasonable doubt" scenario. We know for a fact GZ pulled the trigger. That's not in question and that is beyond a reasonable doubt...GZ shot and killed TM. Fact. We are trying to determine motive. There is no way motive can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Its impossible. In regular cases, motive helps prove that someone did it and this is not a regular case.

 

Keep in mind, Martin was literally a stone's throw away from his own front door, and had plenty of time to enter his dwelling, if he was in that much, why did he not just step inside his house?

Also, I think the failure to allow evidence about Martin dealing with firearms, and bragging about fighting ability, should have been admitted into evidence. The State's contention is Martin was an innocent 17 yr old boy and that should have been allowed to be impeached by the Defense.

 

Say it any way you want. The prosecution has not proved their supposition and are trying to sell it by saying that GZ motives were questionable. They are attacking his character by painting him in the light they are.

 

He also could of used his cell phone to call for help.

 

vs a confrontation in the dark w/a stranger?

Every time, lock the door, call the police.

 

Bottom line is what can be proved. The burden is not on GZ to prove his innocence it is their obligation to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ is guilty. The only thing they did was offer their theories with in sufficient evidence to convincingly back them up.

 

If it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, he'll be found guilty. I don't think the prosecution proved that, though. The prosecution, in closing arguments, told the jury to "rule with their hearts." They're trying to bring emotion in to a ruling that is supposed to follow rule of law. They have nothing else.

He'll be found not guilty and sued for wrongful death in civil court.

IMO.

 

LMAO

I guess I'm the only one who got the reference!




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Interesting side note to that is if Zimmerman had claimed STYG, the civil suit portion would not had been allowed to proceed.

 

Sounds like it's either going to be "Manslaughter" or "Not Guilty":


http://thesent.nl/15a9RUW


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Well, what happens is there is a sort of list of specifications for any given charge, and tbh they are usually vague terms like "..with malice.." or "..with premeditation.." or "..knowingly.." , if anything my take is the jury is debating the list and the terms to get down to the brass tax on whether Zimmerman met those requirements.

FWIW, I take that as a very good sign for him as it means there is doubt as to whether he met them, if it was clear to the jury there would be no need for clarifications.

IE, you only ask if you are in doubt, not b/c you are certain.

 

It probably means they are hungry. I wonder if that favors the state or the defense?

 

As I've said, the legaleze is confusing even for professionals, reading instructions word for word does not mean those outside of the legal profession will grasp it.

INOW, as Inigo Montoya said "..I do not think that word means what you think it means..."

 

Wow. I hope that's not the standard instruction, or the Rules Committee needs some serious help.

In other words, to prove manslaughter, the State doesn't need to prove that Zimmerman intended to cause death. It's enough if the State proves that Zimmerman intended to do an act that was more culpable than mere negligence, that was not justified, and that was not excusable; and that the act Zimmerman intended to do resulted in death.

Zimmerman had to intend a grossly negligent or reckless act. The act he intended can't have been justified, and can't have been excusable.

The act Zimmerman intended was to follow Martin while armed, despite being advised by the dispatcher that he didn't "have to" do that (note: not forbidden to do it).

Is it reckless or grossly negligent? He had a right to carry that firearm where he went in order to defend himself, even (especially?) where a confrontation was foreseeable. If carrying a gun into a dangerous situation is automatically reckless or grossly negligent, the state should pull every concealed carry permit that's outstanding.

Is it justified? Is a crime watch volunteer justified in following someone he suspects of being a prowler to spot him for the police, when there have been other prowlers in the neighborhood recently? Where's the evidence that he intended to corner, detain or confront Martin? Remember, he's presumed innocent.

Is it excusable? If it isn't strictly justified, can he be excused for being overly zealous in trying to prevent crime in his apartment complex? Do the police coordinate with his crime watch group?

The only way he has a problem is if he's after the kid out of racist ill will. There's not enough to conclude that on this record.

And there you have it. Racial considerations versus the Second Amendment and the extended castle doctrine.

I hope Judge Nelson impounds that verdict until tomorrow morning if it comes back tonight.

 

Disagree, think the addition of the manslaughter charge muddied the waters.

It sounds like they are discussing Zimmerman's actions in terms of the manslaughter statute and needed the law clarified, which is why I thought it dirty pool on the part of the DA (no surprise) to add them in as the defense was arguing a 2nd degree murder defense, not a manslaughter defense.

There is a difference in how one would approach a case.

 

Just to add in "grossly negligent" is a vague term one that I have a hard time wrapping the ol' head around.

This is where legal definitions fall down, as if one then follows the rabbit hole it usually will say "wantonly disregarding"

per wiki, as usual, the word being used is then used in the definition

 

Very interesting call. He's not at all excited. Very matter of fact. Wants to meet the cops when they arrive. Calmly directs them into the complex and to where he is. No indication of ill will (just mild frustration that they always get away) or confrontational pursuit. Doesn't sound like a vigilante or a racist to me. Mentions race only after he is asked. None of it is inconsistent with his story that he was confronted and hit.

 

At 9 pm on a Saturday evening..wow