Murder2 really boils down to this... Let's Analise where it stands at this point. (1 Viewer)

[Grim17]

You can debate any one of a hundred different aspect of this case, but the bottom line is this...

In order for the state to prove Zimmerman's actions were not done in self defense, they have to rip Zimmerman's story to shreds from the time of the confrontation, until he shot Martin. That's all that really matters...

Here's Zimmerman's story, broke down into 4 pieces:




Now let's see where we stand so far now that the state is about to wrap up their case... I'll start with #1


What evidence has the state presented to show that Zimmerman was not walking east on the sidewalk back toward his truck?
A: None

What evidence has the state presented to show that Martin did not come out of the shadows and confront Zimmerman?
A: None

What evidence has the state presented to show that Martin did not initiate the violence by punching Zimmerman in the face, smashing and possibly breaking his nose?
A: None

What evidence has the state presented that indicates Zimmerman initiated the physical contact, not Martin?
A: None

What evidence has the state presented to show that the confrontation did not take place at the "T"?
A: None

What evidence has the state presented to show that the events that took place at the "T" did not happen the way Zimmerman described?
A: None

How many witnesses have provided testimony that contradicts, or might contradict, anything said in #1
A: 1 - Witness Selene claims she heard some running headed north toward the "T" just before the confrontation, but didn't see anyone.

Here are how all the witnesses testified on #1:



I'll do some more tomorrow... Anyone want to take a crack at this one, or another, go for it.

 

[spanky]

If you're going to analize something, you can leave me out of it.

 

[nota bene]

If you're going to analize something, you can leave me out of it.

Oh, me too. (Joking about your spelling.)

 

[Grim17]

If you're going to analize something, you can leave me out of it.

OK... Done.

 

[spanky]

BTW - Is that Zimm's version or Grimm's version?

 

[Grim17]

OK... I think it's a pretty safe bet that nobody here disagrees, that the state did nothing at all to disprove #1... OK, how about #2 then... Has the state managed to disprove any of that? Well, we know that they both ended up south of the "T", which everyone agrees with including two witnesses confirmed. We also know that nobody came to anyones aid during the confrontation.



Has the state presented any physical evidence to disprove Zimmerman's claim that Martin was the man who was on top of him during the time screams for help were being heard?
A: No

Has the state presented any witnesses to disprove Zimmerman's claim that Martin was the man who was on top of him during the time screams for help were being heard?
A: Yes, 1 - Witness Jeannee testified that it was Zimmerman who was on top of Martin during this time. She came to her conclusion a day or 2 after the incident comparing size from a picture of Z and 3 different pictures in the media of a younger Martin when he was much smaller. She could not identify the color of clothes or their races, because it was too dark from where she was.
Counter witnesses: 1 -John testified that it was Martin on top of Z. He was the closest witness to the incident and identified them both based on the clothes they had on.

Has the state presented anything to disprove Zimmerman's claim that Martin had hit him several times while they were on the ground, or that Z was not punched several times?
A: No

Has the state presented anything to disprove Zimmerman's claim that Martin had slammed his head multiple times on the edge of the sidewalk?
A: No - But they did present an ME that said it was possible that it could have only been 1 blow to the back of his head. She also questioned the severity of the impact(s).

Has the state presented anything to disprove Zimmerman's claim that he was the person heard on the 911 tape yelling multiple times for help?
A: Yes - Witness Jane testified that she believed it was Martin yelling, based on her summation the pitch and tone of the yells came from child, not an adult.
Counter witnesses: John testified that he believed the yells were coming from Zimmerman. He based his belief on 2 things: Sound dynamics and common sense. The yells he heard were direct mouth to ear sounds, as opposed to being indirect sounds that were obstructed or the result of echos. When he heard them, Zimmerman was on the ground facing him, while Martin had his back to him and was facing the building across from his house, which would have sounded less clear, with less fidelity, and the fact it was bouncing off the other house would have been apparent to him.






After reviewing the states case thus far, I conclude that they have not managed to disprove any part of #2, just as the didn't with #1. They presented evidence to suggests that parts weren't true, but nothing that refutes his story or eliminates reasonable doubt.


If someone thinks I've missed something and/or disagrees and believe the state has in fact disproved either points #1 or #2 please say so.

 

[spanky]

Do you understand people might be staying away from this thread because the title has "let's analise" in it?

Heheh...

I thought you would have analised that an hour or two ago when it was mentioned.

Guess not...heheh.

 

[sharon]

You can debate any one of a hundred different aspect of this case, but the bottom line is this...

In order for the state to prove Zimmerman's actions were not done in self defense, they have to rip Zimmerman's story to shreds from the time of the confrontation, until he shot Martin. That's all that really matters...

Here's Zimmerman's story, broke down into 4 pieces:

View attachment 67149850


Now let's see where we stand so far now that the state is about to wrap up their case... I'll start with #1


What evidence has the state presented to show that Zimmerman was not walking east on the sidewalk back toward his truck?
A: None

What evidence has the state presented to show that Martin did not come out of the shadows and confront Zimmerman?
A: None

What evidence has the state presented to show that Martin did not initiate the violence by punching Zimmerman in the face, smashing and possibly breaking his nose?
A: None

What evidence has the state presented that indicates Zimmerman initiated the physical contact, not Martin?
A: None

What evidence has the state presented to show that the confrontation did not take place at the "T"?
A: None

What evidence has the state presented to show that the events that took place at the "T" did not happen the way Zimmerman described?
A: None

How many witnesses have provided testimony that contradicts, or might contradict, anything said in #1
A: 1 - Witness Selene claims she heard some running headed north toward the "T" just before the confrontation, but didn't see anyone.

Here are how all the witnesses testified on #1:

View attachment 67149851

I'll do some more tomorrow... Anyone want to take a crack at this one, or another, go for it.

You have mixed up east and west.

 

[SMTA]

Analise!?

Spell much?

 

[Grim17]

You have mixed up east and west.

No I haven't

 

[Grim17]

So. spelling is the only thing aboit this post thatcan be challenged...

That says a lot,

 

[Summerwind]

So. spelling is the only thing aboit this post thatcan be challenged...

That says a lot,

No, you're very original premise in the OP is that the state has to disprove Z's statements. That's a fallacy. As soon as Z claimed self defense, the burden of proof relating to self defense is 100% upon the defense, not required for the state to disprove it's possibility, but the defenses job to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. I seriously doubt they will be able to do that.

 

[Oceandan]

The state's case is insurmountable. Not only has the state failed utterly to show fact beyond a reasonable doubt, they must also show George Zimmerman could NOT be acting in self defense. When there are more witnesses that corroborate George's version of events, which by the way he recounted many times, WITHOUT information about what witnesses would say, the state cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Again, all the "periphery actions and events make great discussion but are LEGALLY irrelevant. Case law supports George Zimmerman as Mark O'Mara eloquently outlined yesterday during motion to acquit, which of course the judge instantly dismissed.

George Zimmerman had injuries from a physical altercation, Trayvon Martin had none. Can someone explain how, logically, it's Martin calling for help repeatedly on the 911 recording? Also when you listen to this recording the yells for help are not constant, but intermittent. If we hallucinate for a moment, if someone is pointing a gun at you why would you EVER stop yelling for help? Common sense tells you it would be a constant yelling and "he's got a gun going to shoot me". On the other hand someone getting an "mma style ground and pound" and fearing for his life, would be interrupted by the blows.

The entire case boils down to this question for me. Does someone who endured a broken nose, and head even, by the STATE's witnesses, making contact with cement at the VERY least (again according to state's witnesses) three times, have the right to use lethal force in order to end the altercation. I believe the evidence and case law point to an overwhelming YES.

 

[Oceandan]

No, you're very original premise in the OP is that the state has to disprove Z's statements. That's a fallacy. As soon as Z claimed self defense, the burden of proof relating to self defense is 100% upon the defense, not required for the state to disprove it's possibility, but the defenses job to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. I seriously doubt they will be able to do that.

Wow, where do you get the above stated OPINION about the law?? This statement is DIAMETRICALLY opposed to law.

The LAW states the prosecution has in fact TWO burdens of proof. They have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" George Zimmerman is guilty of murder 2. They ALSO have the burden of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt", George Zimmerman could NOT be using self defense.


The ONLY thing the defense must do is create a "reasonable" doubt. The state's OWN witnesses have created the reasonable doubt.

 

[Summerwind]

The state's case is insurmountable. Not only has the state failed utterly to show fact beyond a reasonable doubt, they must also show George Zimmerman could NOT be acting in self defense. When there are more witnesses that corroborate George's version of events, which by the way he recounted many times, WITHOUT information about what witnesses would say, the state cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Again, all the "periphery actions and events make great discussion but are LEGALLY irrelevant. Case law supports George Zimmerman as Mark O'Mara eloquently outlined yesterday during motion to acquit, which of course the judge instantly dismissed.

George Zimmerman had injuries from a physical altercation, Trayvon Martin had none. Can someone explain how, logically, it's Martin calling for help repeatedly on the 911 recording? Also when you listen to this recording the yells for help are not constant, but intermittent. If we hallucinate for a moment, if someone is pointing a gun at you why would you EVER stop yelling for help? Common sense tells you it would be a constant yelling and "he's got a gun going to shoot me". On the other hand someone getting an "mma style ground and pound" and fearing for his life, would be interrupted by the blows.

The entire case boils down to this question for me. Does someone who endured a broken nose, and head even, by the STATE's witnesses, making contact with cement at the VERY least (again according to state's witnesses) three times, have the right to use lethal force in order to end the altercation. I believe the evidence and case law point to an overwhelming YES.

WRONG! They do not have to disprove Z, Z has to prove the self-defense aspect beyond a reasonable doubt, that's all on his shoulders. To date there is enough in the witness accounts, Z's statements worldwide, and the physical evidence to leave room for plenty of doubt about the incident and Z's motives. But, Z hasn't had his side presented yet, so things may change.

You guys though really need to understand that the state does NOT have to disprove the self-defense, Z has the burden of proof on that aspect.

 

[Oceandan]

You know nothing of the law.

 

[Summerwind]

Wow, where do you get the above stated OPINION about the law?? This statement is DIAMETRICALLY opposed to law.

The LAW states the prosecution has in fact TWO burdens of proof. They have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" George Zimmerman is guilty of murder 2. They ALSO have the burden of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt", George Zimmerman could NOT be using self defense.


The ONLY thing the defense must do is create a "reasonable" doubt. The state's OWN witnesses have created the reasonable doubt.

No you're wrong.... Once a defendant has claimed self-defense the burden of proof regarding the self defense is on the defendant. All the state has to prove is that he killed someone, and that's not even in question. If the state further wants M2 then they also have to prove a certain level of intent and maliciousness, but they don't have to disprove Z's self-defense, that's all on Z.

Untitled Document

Though this link is from CA it is, as I've come to understand, the law of the land nationwide as in each state has similar requirements.

 

[Excon]

No, you're very original premise in the OP is that the state has to disprove Z's statements. That's a fallacy. As soon as Z claimed self defense, the burden of proof relating to self defense is 100% upon the defense, not required for the state to disprove it's possibility, but the defenses job to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. I seriously doubt they will be able to do that.

You have already been shown to be wrong about that. And yet you continue to spout the same false info. Strange?

 

[Summerwind]

You know nothing of the law.

Apparently more than you regarding this. Probably because I was specifically curious about who had the burden of proof, so I looked it up. Ask me much anything else about the law, and you'd be right.

 

[Summerwind]

You have already been shown to be wrong about that. And yet you continue to spout the same false info. Strange?

Darlin' I have provided above the link to show the accuracy, and yet you provide no evidence to your OPINION and misunderstanding regarding a defense of self-defense.

 

[buck]

Here is a presser from Omara describing what the state has to do - thanks to Excon for posting the link originally:

O'Mara Presser (5 July 2013) - YouTube

Start at 6:15

 

[Excon]

Darlin' I have provided above the link to show the accuracy, and yet you provide no evidence to your OPINION and misunderstanding regarding a defense of self-defense.

Your link shows you to be wrong.
That is your misunderstanding.

 

[Excon]

Darlin' I have provided above the link to show the accuracy, and yet you provide no evidence to your OPINION and misunderstanding regarding a defense of self-defense.

Besides your link showing you are wrong, you are blatantly telling an untruth as I previously proved the information for you.


So you obviously didn't pay attention the first time around.
Figures.

Can you (or more importantly can Z and his lawyers) prove that? The burden of proof changes to the defendant in a self-defense plea. All we have to date is Z's word for what happened, and though fluxuation in the story is expected under normal truth-iness, he's been caught in numerous other un-related directly to the events of that night that call his ability or willingness to be fully honest into question.

First of all. He has not been caught lying.
That resides totally in the accusers imagination.


Secondly, the burden does not change in an affirmative defense case.
The prosecution still has to prove a crime happened.
They still must prove every element.

The defenses burden is to make a "showing" of evidence sufficient to generate a jury instruction for self-defense.
This burden has already been met by cross examination of the prosecutions witnesses as well as the prosecution submitting evidence of Zimmerman saying he did and his reasons why.

Zimmerman only has to make a showing.

The Prosecutors burden is to prove he did not act in self-defense.

Even O'Mara has said as much in his interviews.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense.

Presenting an affirmative defense offers no relief to the government in what they
must prove. Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977). Rather, if the defense
generates an affirmative defense, the government must then disprove the defense
generally beyond a reasonable doubt. Mullaney, 421 U.S. at 704; U.S. v. Jackson,
569 F.2d 1003, 1008 n.12 (7th Cir. 1978)(emphasis added).​

Pay attention this time as you obviously didn't before.
From what I previously provided, specifically speaking about the burdens.
(I formatted it differently so maybe you could understand it this time.)

UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

[B][COLOR="#000000"]UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES[/COLOR][/B][SIZE=1]

[...]

[/SIZE][B][COLOR="#000000"]D. Burdens[/COLOR][/B]
The term “affirmative defense” seems inextricably tied to arguments about burden shifting.
Three different burdens exist; 
[INDENT][COLOR="#0000ff"][U][COLOR="#000000"][B]burden of proof[/B] (always on the government),[/COLOR][/U][/COLOR]
[B][COLOR="#000000"]burden of production[/COLOR][/B] (normally on the defense),and 
[B][COLOR="#000000"]burden of persuasion[/COLOR][/B] (normally back on the government).[/INDENT]
The burden of proof to prove the essential elements of the crime charged BRD starts with
and[highlight] [COLOR="#000000"]ALWAYS stays with the Government[/COLOR][/highlight].
The burden of production to generate an affirmative defense is on the defense.
This is constitutional because the defense is not negating an essential element of the crime charged.
The standard, meaning the quantum of evidence needed, varies with the particular affirmative defense.
Generally it is either by a preponderance, or by clear and convincing. Once the defense has met this burden
of producing an affirmative defense,[COLOR="#0000ff"][U] [COLOR="#000000"]the Government has the additional [B]burden[/B][/COLOR][/U][/COLOR] of persuading the jury
not just as to each element of the crime BRD, but also to persuade the jury to reject the affirmative defense BRD as well.

[INDENT]I[COLOR="#000000"][B]. Burden of Proof[/B][/COLOR]
Presenting an affirmative defense offers no relief to the government in what they
must prove. Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977). Rather, if the defense
generates an affirmative defense, [COLOR="#ff0000"][U][highlight][COLOR="#000000"]the government must then disprove the defense
generally beyond a reasonable doubt[/COLOR][/highlight][/U][/COLOR]. Mullaney, 421 U.S. at 704; U.S. v. Jackson,
569 F.2d 1003, 1008 n.12 (7th Cir. 1978)(emphasis added).[/INDENT][SIZE=1]


[...]

[B]Google Doc[/B]
[url]https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:06-_HilumfEJ:www.fd.org/pdf_lib/beneman_affirmative_defenses_materials.pdf+affirmative+defense&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjQQ9DDIG6I9rtWnkdrvG4XMpf-h2KGVxjIf2cgCnXgnZ6rKrFrnVZwDO3Pw-YkvR4VQt6w8d4k7Jd6u3XiNVni3HwMVJaz2xJgZswMP-HkNfqJhwe5jZwla03YrbDJEf3LwZ9D&sig=AHIEtbQjGQcnos5_jKrclWonXfetxH8Zuw[/url]

[B]Straight Pdf[/B]
[url=http://avenue-s.us/resources/beneman_affirmative_defenses_materials.pdf]UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES[/url][/SIZE]

As for proving. For purposes of a trial, the jury is the one who usually determines what is proof.
Everything else is evidence, not proof.
Please keep in mind that Zimmerman's account is evidence.
That which is not corroborated, and can not be refuted, stands as all we have to go on.

#1 was provided long ago by the City's Mangers release.
And it was testified to during trial. It was only a suggestion, a suggestion that he did not have to follow.

#2 Is a mixture of what we know he said on the phone, and what he says happened.

 

[Summerwind]

Your link shows you to be wrong.
That is your misunderstanding.

Please elaborate as to how I've got it wrong and please quote the article.

Here is another link showing the burden of proof relating to the claim of self-defense is upon the defendant not the prosecution.

Criminal Trials - Who Has the Burden of Proof? - Lawyers.com

 

[joko104]

No, you're very original premise in the OP is that the state has to disprove Z's statements. That's a fallacy. As soon as Z claimed self defense, the burden of proof relating to self defense is 100% upon the defense, not required for the state to disprove it's possibility, but the defenses job to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. I seriously doubt they will be able to do that.

Wrong. Yes, I understand many Zimmerman haters often declare a person is guilty unless he/she can prove innocence beyond doubt. Other countries have that system of presumed guilt.