This might have been it..... not quite the point I am making now.... but Jeralyn's stuff is always worth repeating.....

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

An interesting post by Sundance at CTH... stuff he has relayed before but laid out clearly here.

I think it is important to keep pushing back on the Scheme Team narrative, in particular the fantasy notion that there is a "Martin Family"... there is not such thing!! Certainly the fund raising touring party of Tracy, Sabrina and Jahvaris Martin (Mom Dad and big brother) is fictional... (Mom and Jaharvis are Fultons and not Martins at all)


http://theconservativetreehouse.com/201 ... ent-295223

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

There's a lot of great stuff there, but I'm not sure about this last paragraph.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, in the immunity hearing, the prosecution/defense roles are essentially reversed with respect to burden of proof, and the legal standard is lessened to a mere preponderance.

In other words: in the immunity hearing, the defense bears the burden to prove, with a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant acted in self-defense. If, in the judge's opinion, the defense fails to meet the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, the defendant is not granted immunity, and the case proceeds to trial, with the normal burden-of-proof roles and standard of evidence restored.

Why I take issue with the quote is that the prosecution does *not* have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not legally act in self-defense; but rather must only prove with a preponderance of the evidence (with the defense bearing the burden of proof, at that).

(I could be wrong on the burden of proof. I'm basing that on self-defense being an affirmative defense, but I'm not sure how that applies specifically under the relevant Florida statutes.)

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

I changed the quote author.. it was me quoting "TalkLeft" (Jeralyn Merritt)

As I understand it... in that quote she is talking about the Trial Proper (if it happens) and not the Immunity Hearing.

IANAL... Not even close
But from what I have read.. yes... at the Immunity hearing the burden is on the Defence to present a case... in this case MOM has said that will be (simple) self defence. The prosecution rebuts that. The standard is "Predominance of evidence" and not Beyond reasonable doubt... but I take that to mean the Defence have to convince the Judge by the predominance of the evidence?

I can not supply links... but I clearly recall MOM in several interviews saying that at the Immunity Hearing his task will be easier because the there is a lower standard of proof (Predominance of evidence), and so I feel confident that it is the case that the Defence only have to convince the judge to that standard.

I take your point it would be different if the Prosecution only had to rebut to that standard.

I don't know what the answer is really.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I'm assuming that the affirmative self-defense defense goes out the window if the defense loses an immunity hearing, except for one specific statute: that of Zimmerman as initial aggressor, but who subsequently relented and tried to end/leave the altercation. Under such scenario, he still has a legal right to self-defense, but is *not* immune from criminal/civil action.

In all other cases, if the defense loses the self-defense immunity hearing, I assume that defense is not available at trial. In that circumstance, the defense is left with preventing the prosecution from proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt. In that case, self-defense would not be available as an *affirmative* defense, but *would* still be available to contribute reasonable doubt to the prosecution's allegations. So, in that sense, the prosecution *would* have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense.

So I suppose I just talked myself into understanding the original quote. :)

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

It would make our lives easier if the case was dismissed, or the Immunity Hearing succeeded, or a appeal succeeded if that hearing failed.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Rumpole: I'd read this at Florida defense attorney Jon Gutmacher's blog, it's apparent that plenty of Florida lawyers share the same point of view.


My first comment is: Angela Corey, who is the State Attorney in Duval County, and prosecuting the case -- needs to be voted out. The more evidence that comes out -- the more it is clear there is no evidence that justified an arrest. Ms. Corey simply ignored the "immunity" section of law for political expedience. All gun owners should take careful note -- that what has happened here so far -- is a travesty of justice. All gun owners need to remember -- next election -- those politicians who will throw them to the wolves at the slightest chance! Because -- this can happen to anyone! Ms. Corey has now, and in the past, relegated the word "immunity" into a meaningless word. To her, it obviously has little meaning -- other than her political ambitions -- forcing a man who CLEARLY fell within the protection of the law into jail, and into a situation which the law was meant to protect.

Why?

Because if you take the time to read, view, and listen to the evidence that's been placed online -- Zimmerman has passed voice stress tests given by the police, he's been consistent in all his answers time-and-time again, his injuries are consistent with being a "victim" -- not an "aggressor", his story is too complicated to be made up on the spot. In fact, everything about the case -- the voice stress; the video re-enactments, his original statements -- everything I've seen says -- there was NEVER any probable cause to arrest him -- lest prosecute him. Sanford Police stand by their original decision -- because they were right! I predict -- the case will be dismissed at a proper motion at some time in the future -- and if not -- that decision will be reversed on appeal.



Jon H. Gutmacher is a criminal defense attorney, NRA certified firearms instructor, and noted author/columnist with over thirty years of criminal trial experience who is also considered the premier legal authority on Florida gun laws and self defense issues, as well as an authority on Federal firearm and weapon laws, and BATF regulatory issues. He actively practices criminal law in the Orlando/Central Florida, area, as well as handling BATF licensing and regulatory issues for FFLs across the State. He is a former FFL, former felony prosecutor and police legal advisor who has been featured on national radio and television shows including Nightline. He is also an NRA Certified Firearms Instructor, Refuse to be a Victim Instructor, and his book, "Florida Firearms - Law, Use & Ownership" is hailed by many as the "bible" on Florida and Federal firearms, weapons, and self defense laws.

Thanks CRG
It's frustrating that despite such opinions from reputable sources... this farce continues

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Daily Daft Posts From Justarse Quest

Even though some concede that Bernie has shown NO EVIDENCE.. they still maintain that Zimmerman is guilty?

They have faith? Is this a Quest for justice, or a Religion and a Quest for The Holy Grail

This is Malicious Wilful Ignorance?

BBM



Please stick broadly to GZ case in this thread.

To discuss JQ, go to
viewtopic.php?f=45&t=63&p=20066#p20066

(More Quotes from Traybots at link - Teeto "pissed off")

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I don't think Teeto understands the statutory meaning of "stand your ground." Perhaps, at some point prior to the one-year anniversary of the incident, these folks will actually read the statutes. To that end, let's have a look, shall we?



776.013 applies to home invasions; so we ignore it here. So let's move on to the money quote:



Conditions under which the use of deadly force is legally justified:

1. A person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death to himself or another
2. A person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent great bodily harm to himself or another
3. To prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

It is important here to note that the "stand your ground" clause ("and does not have a duty to retreat") applies explicitly to the use of lethal force in self-defense. Contrast these two clauses:


...and...


Back to Teeto:



There isn't an honest police department, prosecutor, judge, or jury that would say that Zimmerman exiting his truck and "looking for" Martin would result in Martin *reasonably* believing that Zimmerman's actions constituted imminent death or great bodily harm to, or the imminent commission of a forcible felony against, Martin.

Zimmerman getting out of his truck and "looking for" Martin simply does not meet the legal standard necessary to justify the forcible felony that Martin committed against Zimmerman.

Note, this would be a good time to bring up the statutory definition of "forcible felony":



And here is the statutory definition of "aggravated battery":



And the statutory definition of "battery":



So, Cliff's notes version: if you strike someone, you have committed battery. If you strike someone with the intent to cause great bodily harm, you have committed felony aggravated battery.

A reasonable person would conclude that the beating Martin administered to Zimmerman that night constituted the latter: felony aggravated battery.

Back to Teeto:



But the prosecution very much *should* care whether or not Martin was the initial aggressor. Why? Roll tape on the statutes:



Under the assumption that Martin was the initial aggressor, Martin cannot claim to have "stood his ground" - i.e. used lethal force in lieu of retreating - unless one of the following conditions apply:

1. In response to Martin's provocation, Zimmerman used such force against Martin that Martin reasonably believed he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, AND:
2. Martin exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of deadly force; OR
3. Martin withdrew in good faith from physical contact, and indicated clearly that he desired to withdraw and terminate the use of force

In order to prove the first condition, the prosecution would have to prove that Zimmerman used sufficient force against Martin that Martin would have reasonably believed he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Unfortunately for the prosecution, Martin evinced absolutely no signs whatsoever that Zimmerman so much as *touched* Martin.

In order to prove the second condition, the prosecution would have to prove that Martin made a good-faith effort to withdraw from physical contact and to terminate the use of force. Unfortunately for the prosecution, at least one witness testified that, with Zimmerman on the ground and screaming for help, Martin continued to beat Zimmerman, even after the witness told him to stop. Not only did Martin not make any effort to withdraw from the conflict, but he defiantly *continued* the conflict, even in the presence of eye-witnesses.

The bottom line is this: had the police arrived 90 seconds earlier, Martin would be alive, and would have been arrested for felony aggravated battery against Zimmerman. And Martin would have absolutely no grounds to claim that his use of force, including lethal force, was justified as self-defense.

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

Wow Chip... Thank you.

I know that bringing together a comprehensive post like that takes some time and effort.

It is "Post of the Day" clearly... but I won't insult you with a silly smiley Icon

And.... it certainly helps clarify things for me.

I am a bit lazy (jaded after 3 years researching detail on the Casey Anthony case)... I know in my mind what is what.. but do not take the time and effort to research and back it up.

(I will expand on my comments regarding Teeto in the other thread)
viewtopic.php?f=45&t=63&p=20066#p20072

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Honestly, with the discussion of the FL self-defense statutes, we've gone over them so much on CTH that the part that took the most time and effort was formatting the response to post here at RT. (Apparently, this forum's post editor doesn't like the tab-spacing in the statute text. I kept getting SQL errors when trying to post. :) )

The statutes are so easy to find, to read, and to understand that, at this point, I must conclude that Martin supporters are willfully ignorant of their content and meaning.

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

Yes... sorry about formatting issues and the dreaded "SQL error" message. It is a cross we have to bear with phpBB platform
As you note..... Statute Text gives problems... so to do the characters (# @) in tweets.

That is part of what I meant.... I know how long it takes to format even if a post is largely copy/paste, and beyond that you obviously had to arrange it within a logical stream.

It is good to lay out the statutes and the reasoning for our own sake, but of course, it has little to no effect on people entrenched in a false belief as a matter of "faith". No amount of evidence or details of the actual applicable laws will sway them.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Just as an aside....

It is nice to see that Teeto reads every public word I write (Shame she misses out on the juicy stuff in the other thread)

But, sadly like most Traybots.. comprehending what she reads remains a bridge too far



Teeto.... it's not "best comment of the day".... it's "Daily Daft Post from Justarse Quest" and I do concede you win hands down every day... I am just trying to give the worker cretins a break.... taking a leaf out of your hero's book and "Sharing the DAFT around"

"it has not gone unnoticed that this person refuses to take a stand and explain what his position is"

By "it has not gone unnoticed" I assume in a round about way you mean "I notice"

Torturing the English language blows your cover when it comes to pretending legal qualifications... surely literacy skills (and simple logic and common sense) would be of a higher standard?

If you have missed what my position on this case is then you simply lack basic English comprehension skills... I state it clearly and unequivocally every day... scroll back... or ask someone with reading ability to read for you and tell you.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Ummmm. Wasn't she just pointing out that 11 months later she still doesn't have a clue to the case the Prosecution intends to present and how they will circumvent some of the obstacles in their way to proving their case beyond reasonable doubt?

Didn't Chip go over this line by line to explain it?

The whole case needs "special attention" because so far, even Bernie de la Rionda was willing to admit, in open court no less, that Martin struck Zimmerman. No one on the State's side will go so far as to started the physical altercation and they can't say that Zimmerman ever struck Martin. Their "star" witness has Martin approaching Zimmerman at the "T" intersection to ask why he is following him some 4 minutes after he disappeared off the radar and being by his father's house.

Witnesses.
Injuries.
DNA.

The only sad thing is that she still hasn't figured that out yet.

Daily Daft Posts From Justarse Quest

Today….. “I believe…….”

You would think that since they post with somebody who “believes” that they can hear 4 accomplices and a cockatoo, the posters at JQ might realise that what they “believe” counts for nought if it is based on nothing more than delusion and hope.

They often state what they “believe” as if it were then fact.

See things as fact because they "believe" it, rather than looking at facts before deciding what to believe.




Please stick broadly to GZ case in this thread.

To discuss JQ, go to
viewtopic.php?f=45&t=63&p=20103#p20103

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

JQ isn't the only place to find Daft Posts from Trayvon cultists.


http://frederickleatherman.com/2013/01/ ... ment-60704

But there's still hope. A small spark of rational thought.


http://frederickleatherman.com/2013/01/ ... ment-60968

Just a couple of corrections (Though I'm just waking up so if I misunderstood what you wrote and am therefore correcting needlessly, disregard this hehe.)

At trial, the State is required to disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt; losing at the immunity hearing doesn't change that.

The Defense can still bring up self defense and SYG, and it's the State's job to disprove it. It's included in the jury instructions, that "If there is any reasonable doubt if deadly force was justified, then you must judge the defendant not guilty."

Some case law too:

Montijo v. State(2011)

When a defendant claims self-defense, the State maintains the burden of proving the defendant committed the crime and did not act in self-defense. See id.; Mosansky v. State, 33 So. 3d 756, 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). The burden never shifts to the defendant to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, he must simply present enough evidence to support giving the instruction.

From Stieh v. State(2011):

It was the State's burden to overcome Stieh's theory of self-defense and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Stieh was not acting lawfully when he stabbed the victim. See Behanna, 985 So. 2d at 555. As noted by this court in Jenkins, HN7"self-defense cases are intensely fact-specific." 942 So. 2d at 916. But where the evidence " 'leaves room for two or more inferences of fact, at least one of which is consistent with the defendant's hypothesis of innocence, [it] is not legally sufficient to make a case for the jury.' " Fowler, 921 So. 2d at 712 (quoting Fowler v. State, 492 So. 2d 1344, 1348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)).

(Those two I picked up from Jeralyn at Talkleft).

Then, doing some research of my own springboarding from those cases led me to Fowler vs. State, and that one makes it clear just how strong the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Fowler says basically that if the evidence does not flat out disprove the Defense's claim of innocence, that the Defendant has to be believed no matter how guilty the evidence makes him look, and that in that situation the case should not even make it to a jury.

So, with the Defense claiming that George was on the ground, with Trayvon on top of him, with George taking injury until he feared for his life and had to shoot...and so far there being absolutely no evidence to refute that, much less beyond a reasonable doubt, I don't see how this case could even reach a jury.

I nominate this line, itself, as the daft post of the day.



True, indeed. A decision to retreat requires the opportunity to retreat. SYG does not apply when the assailant has the victim pinned to the ground, actively preventing the victim from getting up and attempting to escape. This is a simple, straight-forward, self-defense case.



First: getting out of one's vehicle is not an inherently illegal act.

Second, mere pursuit of someone is not an inherently illegal act.

Third, even actual pursuit does not meet the statutory standard of causing reasonable fear of imminent risk to life or bodily harm that might otherwise justify Martin's use of force against Zimmerman. If Martin were alive, and told police that he attacked Zimmerman out of fear, because Zimmerman was "chasing" him, Martin would have been arrested for felony aggravated battery.

Fourth, the State is already on record, in court, stating that they do not have any evidence to refute Zimmerman's testimony that he was attempting only to maintain visual contact with Martin, and after the NEN operator said, "we don't actually need you to [follow Martin]", Zimmerman went far enough to see a street sign, and then turned and headed back to his car.



Zimmerman was a legal concealed-carry permit holder, and was legally justified to carry a loaded weapon. Legally concealed-carrying a loaded firearm does not deprive one of the statutory right to self-defense, including the statutory right to use lethal force in self-defense.

Also: if this quote is implying that Zimmerman can be heard loading his weapon on the NEN call, then we're dealing with someone completely ignorant of firearms, and the load capacity of most semi-automatic pistols. Zimmerman's firearm had a 7-round magazine, and he was carrying in a standard, 7+1 load out, meaning that he loaded 7 rounds in the magazine, put the magazine in the gun, loaded a round in the chamber (leaving 6 in the magazine), removed the magazine, placed an additional round in the magazine (for a total of 7 rounds in the magazine), and then re-inserted the magazine. Thus, Zimmerman had 7 rounds in the magazine, and 1 round in the chamber.

Police reports clearly indicate that, at the scene, one discharged round was found at the scene, and that the gun had 1 round in the chamber, and six rounds in the magazine. Thus, all rounds were accounted for.

Why is this important? Well, for the idiots who claim that they hear Zimmerman rack the slide of his gun on the NEN call, it pretty much proves their ignorance of firearms. If Zimmerman had racked his slide, the action would have *ejected the round in the chamber*. (That's why real gun owners in the real world don't go around racking their slides like Vin Diesel in some Hollywood shoot-out movie.)

Thus, instead of 8 rounds total in the gun (1 in the chamber, 7 in the magazine), he would have been left with only 7 rounds (1 in the chamber, 6 in the magazine). Thus, in order for police to have documented 6 rounds in the magazine, one in the chamber, and one spent round recovered, Zimmerman would have had to *reload the ejected round back into the magazine*. That would have required two hands - recover ejected round, remove magazine, hold magazine with one hand while inserting the round with the other, re-insert magazine - all while holding his cell phone, while talking to the NEN operator. And he would have had to do so without the sound of any of that activity being captured on the NEN call recording.

These ignorant fools propose a physical impossibility.

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

Not to mention that you prep your weapon and holster it before leaving. Having to stop and do that in a potentially dangerous situation could cost you your life.