Trayvon Martin: 'Shoot first' law under scrutiny

[jen fla]

Originally Posted by seekerz

Which assumptions? Facts: recorded ones. I forgot to include the surveillance video, hospital/emergency response records, and the voice analysis (if the science is proven reliable). And the grass-stained jacket - if it is available...

forgetting to add forensic audio results changes what you had said earlier. given your first post it would have been all assumptions.

[seekerz]

Originally Posted by Bocephus

The surveillance video is worthless IMO.

That's your opinion. It could be enhanced for a jury.

The video, together with the emergency responders' recording referenced earlier on this thread, the presence or absence of medical records for the next day, any existing photos of injuries as well as photos of Martin's hands, would give the jury more valuable information than any single eyewitness could give unless they saw the whole thing from beginning to end and told it all to the police from the very first, before all the outcry.

Add to all of this, a recreation of the shooting using ballistic information, and you have your case without need for any 'he said, she said'.

[maryjk]

Originally Posted by seekerz

True, but they'd have one less question to answer in court: "Why didn't you run/hide/stop pursuing/wait for the police?"

That would be assuming that Zimmerman took the stand.

He doesn't have to, in addition, the jury can not use that he didn't take the stand as an assumption of guilt.

[seekerz]

Originally Posted by jen fla

forgetting to add forensic audio results changes what you had said earlier. given your first post it would have been all assumptions.

How is any recorded fact: audio, video or printed - an assumption? We'd have Zimmerman's story from the police report, in addition to any evidence that disproves it (I'm inclined to believe there's plenty). Who needs witnesses? This is being presented as self-defense, right. All that is required is to prove the admitted shooter is lying about the attack.

[seekerz]

Originally Posted by maryjk

That would be assuming that Zimmerman took the stand.

He doesn't have to, in addition, the jury can not use that he didn't take the stand as an assumption of guilt.

My comment on 'duty to retreat' was a general one. Zimmerman, under FL law, had no such duty.

[jen fla]

Originally Posted by seekerz

Any reasonable jury can understand the situations in which it is not prudent to run. It's not necessary for the law to absolve people of the responsibility to escape when it is feasible to do so.

maybe i'm just super sleepy right now and can't see the obvious, but can you give me an example where a victim's life is in imminent danger and it is more feasible for them to run away?

if someone pulls a gun on me while i'm in a car, i could step on the gas and try to get away, but they also could shoot at my car. it would be up to the victim to decide which course of action gives them the greatest chance of surviving.

[Dawnia]

Originally Posted by seekerz

Did I say that it was? Following someone qualifies as the opposite of escaping them.

It is at the point when deadly force is used that matters, not the events prior to. At the point you shoot your gun, you must not have a reasonable means of escape to avoid being killed. Anything that happened prior to this point is irrelevant to whether you have a means of escape.

[jen fla]

Originally Posted by seekerz

How is any recorded fact: audio, video or printed - an assumption? We'd have Zimmerman's story from the police report, in addition to any evidence that disproves it (I'm inclined to believe there's plenty). Who needs witnesses? This is being presented as self-defense, right. All that is required is to prove the admitted shooter is lying about the attack.

that is not what you said in your first post on this matter (bold underline mine):

Originally Posted by seekerz

It's not just witnesses coming forward. Call me crazy, but in my mind, this whole thing could be presented to a jury with just the timeline (recreated from 911 and personal phone calls), the area map and the recorded information. No need to call a single witness, honest or otherwise. I see the hardest part of the trial as the judge's: finding 12 people on this continent who have not been unduly influenced by what they heard of this case.

a timeline, map and police report still doesn't prove anything, therefore assumption.

you added the other evidence after you made that first post. did you mean to say, that given all the evidence we have at this point a jury could come to a conclusion without a reasonable doubt that zimmerman was guilty?

[seekerz]

Originally Posted by jen fla

maybe i'm just super sleepy right now and can't see the obvious, but can you give me an example where a victim's life is in imminent danger and it is more feasible for them to run away?

if someone pulls a gun on me while i'm in a car, i could step on the gas and try to get away, but they also could shoot at my car. it would be up to the victim to decide which course of action gives them the greatest chance of surviving.

Sure. I have called 911, the police are on their way, a stalker is after me who does not appear to be armed and there's a gas station within running distance.

Edit: For clarity, running distance = a few feet.

BTW, here's the TX case I referenced earlier.

[seekerz]

Originally Posted by jen fla

that is not what you said in your first post on this matter (bold underline mine):



a timeline, map and police report still doesn't prove anything, therefore assumption.

you added the other evidence after you made that first post. did you mean to say, that given all the evidence we have at this point a jury could come to a conclusion without a reasonable doubt that zimmerman was guilty?

In case you missed it, I've underlined in bold below, recorded information does not = police report only:

Originally Posted by seekerz
It's not just witnesses coming forward. Call me crazy, but in my mind, this whole thing could be presented to a jury with just the timeline (recreated from 911 and personal phone calls), the area map and the recorded information. No need to call a single witness, honest or otherwise. I see the hardest part of the trial as the judge's: finding 12 people on this continent who have not been unduly influenced by what they heard of this case.

[jen fla]

Originally Posted by seekerz

Sure. I have called 911, the police are on their way, a stalker is after me who does not appear to be armed and there's a gas station within running distance.

BTW, here's the TX case I referenced earlier.

you feel threatened, yes, but how is that imminent?

[seekerz]

Originally Posted by jen fla

you feel threatened, yes, but how is that imminent?

You're right. Okay, he's got a crow bar and is advancing toward my car but I am closer to the gas station than to him.

[seekerz]

Originally Posted by Dawnia

It is at the point when deadly force is used that matters, not the events prior to. At the point you shoot your gun, you must not have a reasonable means of escape to avoid being killed. Anything that happened prior to this point is irrelevant to whether you have a means of escape.

Sorry, I'm lost. If I follow an armed burglar to my neighbor's window and shoot him when he senses my presence and turns sharply around, gun in hand, how is my following him not relevant to my 'defending' myself.

[Dawnia]

Originally Posted by seekerz

How is any recorded fact: audio, video or printed - an assumption? We'd have Zimmerman's story from the police report, in addition to any evidence that disproves it (I'm inclined to believe there's plenty). Who needs witnesses? This is being presented as self-defense, right. All that is required is to prove the admitted shooter is lying about the attack.

You do realize that all of your evidence couldn't be presented to the court without witnesses right? A judge would never allow any of it in unless someone could be cross-examined regarding it.

[jen fla]

Originally Posted by seekerz

In case you missed it, I've underlined in bold below, recorded information does not = police report only:

but you wanted to cut out all the witnesses! honest or not!

you could paint a picture, but i doubt you could prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. look, i'm with you. i personally have the feeling that george is guilty, but given the evidence i still am trying not to jump to any conclusions.

also, i haven't read anything about trayvon's hands either. i did read that his autopsy results hadn't been released so i'm not sure where people are getting their info from.

http://www.wsmv.com/story/17286084/t...ill-under-seal