Author Topic: The Prosecution's Burden of Proof  (Read 11391 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: The Prosecution's Burden of Proof
« Reply #60 on: June 01, 2013, 06:46:15 PM »
I think the prosecution just might come up with something applicable.  Cbolt earlier referenced this article that contains the following:
Quote
Florida is among many states that follows common law regarding citizen's arrest. You can detain someone, until police arrive, if you witness a felony or have reasonable belief someone committed a felony. You should tell a person if they are under arrest, but don't worry about reading them Miranda rights

They might charge Zimmerman with violating the above common law by making a false citizen's arrest and forcibly trying to detain Martin even though he didn't have a reasonable belief that Martin had committed a felony.   It certainly fits their theory of what happened, if not the law.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: The Prosecution's Burden of Proof
« Reply #61 on: June 01, 2013, 07:05:33 PM »
Isn't that the point of 776.032?  He couldn't retreat because he was on his back? 

776.032 is the immunity statute. It doesn't mention opportunity to retreat. It refers to other statutes for the definition of justifiable use of force.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: The Prosecution's Burden of Proof
« Reply #62 on: June 01, 2013, 07:15:03 PM »
I think the prosecution just might come up with something applicable.  Cbolt earlier referenced this article that contains the following:
They might charge Zimmerman with violating the above common law by making a false citizen's arrest and forcibly trying to detain Martin even though he didn't have a reasonable belief that Martin had committed a felony.   It certainly fits their theory of what happened, if not the law.

The common law give peoples rights to detain someone they might not normally be allowed to detain. There's no reverse side that makes a common law crime of what would not otherwise be a crime. In any event, in Florida, there are no common-law felonies.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: The Prosecution's Burden of Proof
« Reply #63 on: June 01, 2013, 07:18:36 PM »
They might charge Zimmerman with violating the above common law by making a false citizen's arrest and forcibly trying to detain Martin . . . It certainly fits their theory of what happened


It doesn't fit any prosecution theory that I am aware of. They never claimed to have evidence that Zimmerman initiated physical contact.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: The Prosecution's Burden of Proof
« Reply #64 on: June 01, 2013, 07:28:57 PM »
Maybe the prosecution will claim that at the time of their meeting Z pulled his gun out to detain M.  I'm sure that would be some sort of forcible felony which would forfeit Zimmerman's right to claim self defense for the ensuing shooting .  They can use Hollien and Hamburger's claim that the early screams might be from Martin as evidence.  Look, if there is going to be a trial, they have got to think of something.  ::)

Offline Evil Chinchilla

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 157
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: The Prosecution's Burden of Proof
« Reply #65 on: June 01, 2013, 11:09:34 PM »
Maybe the prosecution will claim that at the time of their meeting Z pulled his gun out to detain M.  I'm sure that would be some sort of forcible felony which would forfeit Zimmerman's right to claim self defense for the ensuing shooting . They can use Hollien and Hamburger's claim that the early screams might be from Martin as evidence.
How would they substantiate claiming this happened?

There's no evidence-- including W8's testimony in any of its forms-- that supports the notion that George approached Trayvon with gun in hand, and Hollier & Harnsberger don't claim to have heard anyone screaming about a gun, unless I'm mistaken.

And "the early screams might be from Martin" isn't anywhere close to proof beyond reasonable doubt of Martin screaming at all-- let alone screaming specifically in response to being forcibly detained at gunpoint.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: The Prosecution's Burden of Proof
« Reply #66 on: June 02, 2013, 12:09:07 AM »
Hollier & Harnsberger don't claim to have heard anyone screaming about a gun, unless I'm mistaken.

They didn't identify any intelligible words from the background voice or voices, not even the ones Serino thought he recognized as 'Help' (H&H report, p.3, Serino on 39/184).

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: The Prosecution's Burden of Proof
« Reply #67 on: June 02, 2013, 06:03:44 AM »
This thread is about the three legally possible arguments that the prosecution can present in order to defeat Zimmerman's self defense claim, in other words, what we may see during the trial.  Nobody here thinks that any have sufficient evidence to back them up.  You have to go other boards like the Orlando Sentinel or Huffington Post to find such opinions. 

Offline MikeB

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: The Prosecution's Burden of Proof
« Reply #68 on: June 02, 2013, 10:29:05 AM »
Maybe the prosecution will claim that at the time of their meeting Z pulled his gun out to detain M.  I'm sure that would be some sort of forcible felony which would forfeit Zimmerman's right to claim self defense for the ensuing shooting .  They can use Hollien and Hamburger's claim that the early screams might be from Martin as evidence.  Look, if there is going to be a trial, they have got to think of something.  ::)
There might be a way to corroborate some of that, but it can never happen. Crump sent Martin's phone to his own analyst to look at data on the phone. I do not believe he is has revealed specifically who got that phone yet. Then, the phone went to MOM. All the information was on the phone. Except for GPS logs the day of the shooting. GPS logs for the days before were there. Withe that information, GPS logs from Zimmerman's phone and Martin's could have given us a walkthrough of who went where. Without Martin's GPS logs, we'll never know. Had this situation been reversed, there may have been race riots by now. But Martin supporters have suspended logic on this matter and simply don't care.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: The Prosecution's Burden of Proof
« Reply #69 on: June 02, 2013, 12:04:38 PM »
There might be a way to corroborate some of that, but it can never happen. Crump sent Martin's phone to his own analyst to look at data on the phone. I do not believe he is has revealed specifically who got that phone yet. Then, the phone went to MOM. All the information was on the phone. Except for GPS logs the day of the shooting. GPS logs for the days before were there. Withe that information, GPS logs from Zimmerman's phone and Martin's could have given us a walkthrough of who went where. Without Martin's GPS logs, we'll never know. Had this situation been reversed, there may have been race riots by now. But Martin supporters have suspended logic on this matter and simply don't care.

If you look at the records you will see that the phone has been in the custody of LE since the night of the shooting.

The Defense does have some GPS information however.  They know that he didn't stay on the quickest route home that night.

Offline Evil Chinchilla

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 157
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: The Prosecution's Burden of Proof
« Reply #70 on: June 02, 2013, 12:40:11 PM »
There might be a way to corroborate some of that, but it can never happen. Crump sent Martin's phone to his own analyst to look at data on the phone. I do not believe he is has revealed specifically who got that phone yet. Then, the phone went to MOM. All the information was on the phone. Except for GPS logs the day of the shooting. GPS logs for the days before were there. Withe that information, GPS logs from Zimmerman's phone and Martin's could have given us a walkthrough of who went where. Without Martin's GPS logs, we'll never know. Had this situation been reversed, there may have been race riots by now. But Martin supporters have suspended logic on this matter and simply don't care.
The only thing the GPS logs would prove would be where Trayvon was prior to the shooting.

It wouldn't do anything to prove what he was doing at those locations and why he was there, much less whether George was attempting to forcibly detain him with a gun.

I doubt we're ever going to get something combining both sets of GPS that shows two blips chasing each other around RTL like the Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote in the mines in that classic cartoon.

Heck, I don't think we'll even get "little Trayvon goes home from the 7-11" laid out in dotted lines all over RTL-- like one of those inevitable "Family Circus" Sunday pages Bil Keane resorted to, oh, about once every six weeks (along with "little Billy taking over the strip for Dad", and the latest "more disturbing than touching" manifestations of ghostly relatives hovering or "Ida Know" framing the kids yet again.)

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: The Prosecution's Burden of Proof
« Reply #71 on: June 02, 2013, 01:28:25 PM »
Crump sent Martin's phone to his own analyst to look at data on the phone.

First time I've heard this. Source?

 

Site Meter
click
tracking