Any legal precedent for this?

[240 is Back]

good thing nobody will be arguing that in the trial then huh?

so what proof do you have again supposition 240?

defense lawyers introduce all sorts of theories.  most are nonsense, and the prosecutor doesn't 'disprove' them. 

[avxo]

However, its going to come down to "was Trayvon justified in following Zimmerman once he gave up and headed back to his truck, and was he justified in initiating physical contact", as they have to prove Zimmermans story false.

I don't think you understand how the systems works... For Zimmerman to get convicted, the Prosecution has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. You will note, that this doesn't mean they have to prove that the defense's version of events is false.

[Shockwave]

I don't think you understand how the systems works... For Zimmerman to get convicted, the Prosecution has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. You will note, that this doesn't mean they have to prove that the defense's version of events is false.

How can they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was out to kill Trayvon if they cant prove his version of the story false?
Seems like the 2 go hand in hand to me. Because if they cant prove that what he said was false, wouldnt there be a reasonable doubt that things may have gone down like he said, which would make it a self-defense claim?

Theres always the chance that they go in there and botch the defense, but IMHO, if his story stays consistent and he doesnt get all crazy, he has a lot more going for him than the prosecution does.

[240 is Back]

How can they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was out to kill Trayvon if they cant prove his version of the story false?
Seems like the 2 go hand in hand to me. Because if they cant prove that what he said was false, wouldnt there be a reasonable doubt that things may have gone down like he said, which would make it a self-defense claim?

Theres always the chance that they go in there and botch the defense, but IMHO, if his story stays consistent and he doesnt get all crazy, he has a lot more going for him than the prosecution does.

I don't understand how anyone can look at this situation and not see Zimmerman as the aggressor.

He's coming home from Target.  Trayvon walking home with a snack, on his cell phone.
ZImmerman then parks his car.  Calls police, agrees to wait at mailbox.  Hangs up after "He's running away"...
Then he hangs up and walks (on his own two feet) at least 2 blocks, where he gets into a fight.
He's calling trayvon a punk and an asshole.  He said they always get away.

Then we know NOTHING.  We don't know who attacked who.  We don't know if zimm doubled back, or just plain made that up.  We don't know if he did cartwheels down the street or cut thru the backyard and intercepted trayvon to get some answers.   That's what everyone here overlooks - many people just introduce zimm's statement of the events as PROOF - this is NOT THE CASE. 

Zimm was clearly the agressor leading up to the fight - we can prove that.  He said trayon was running away, and he somehow moved 2 blocks in 3 minutes.  He was hauling ass.

[avxo]

How can they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was out to kill Trayvon if they cant prove his version of the story false?

They don't have to prove it false. Flex Wheeler may say he was attacked by ninjas, but I don't have to prove it false to raise reasonable doubt that he actually wasn't.


They just have to convince twelve people to vote for their theory of the crime and that the defense doesn't raise reasonable doubt.

Seems like the 2 go hand in hand to me. Because if they cant prove that what he said was false, wouldnt there be a reasonable doubt that things may have gone down like he said, which would make it a self-defense claim?

No: not being able to prove that what he said was false isn't necessarily reasonable doubt. See the Flex Wheeler example above.

Theres always the chance that they go in there and botch the defense, but IMHO, if his story stays consistent and he doesnt get all crazy, he has a lot more going for him than the prosecution does.

You cannot make that statement. You aren't privy to the evidence the prosecution has and cannot evaluate the relative strength of their case because you know nothing about it.

[Shockwave]

They don't have to prove it false. Flex Wheeler may say he was attacked by ninjas, but I don't have to prove it false to raise reasonable doubt that he actually wasn't.


They just have to convince twelve people to vote for their theory of the crime and that the defense doesn't raise reasonable doubt.
No: not being able to prove that what he said was false isn't necessarily reasonable doubt. See the Flex Wheeler example above.


You cannot make that statement. You aren't privy to the evidence the prosecution has and cannot evaluate the relative strength of their case because you know nothing about it.

Dershowitz also explained that Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law might not be an issue in the case, and that even if Zimmerman cannot use the law as a defense, he may still have a legitimate claim of self defense. “A defendant, under Florida law, loses his ‘stand your ground’ defense if he provoked the encounter — but he retains traditional self-defense if he reasonably believed his life was in danger and his only recourse was to employ deadly force,” he wrote.

Thus, if Zimmerman verbally provoked Martin, but Martin then got on top of Zimmerman and banged his head into the ground, broke his nose, bloodied his eyes and persisted in attacking Zimmerman — and if Zimmerman couldn’t protect himself from further attack except by shooting Martin — he would have the right to do that. (The prosecution has already admitted that it has no evidence that Zimmerman started the actual fight.)

[avxo]

I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make. That if Zimmerman felt his life was in danger, he could defend himself even if he started the encounter? That's hardly earth-shattering.

[Shockwave]

I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make. That if Zimmerman felt his life was in danger, he could defend himself even if he started the encounter? That's hardly earth-shattering.

Originally I didnt think you could provoke an encounter and claim self-defense. I just found out I was wrong. Which, for Zimmerman, is very, very good.
It may be morally wrong, but that doesnt mean its illegal. From what Ive read, the Prosecution released its evidence, and its not much more valid than anything we knew about prior.

[Dos Equis]

Not a case but found this interesting
Justifiable Homicide
http://crimelawyers.org/Content365.htm

5.      Defendant is initial aggressor

A defendant cannot claim self-defense if they created the dangerous situation.  For example, if a defendant began a fight, and then the decedent fought back in lawful self-defense, the defendant cannot then claim self-defense in killing.  

There are two exceptions to this rule.  The first exception to this would be if the initial aggressor communicates that they want to end the fight, and the decedent then continues to attack, the aggressor may then use self-defense as if they had not been the initial aggressor.  Another exception is if the defendant began the fight, but the decedent then responded with sudden escalated force, a defendant can then claim self-defense.

Judge Butterbean was all over this.  

Dershowitz also explained that Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law might not be an issue in the case, and that even if Zimmerman cannot use the law as a defense, he may still have a legitimate claim of self defense. “A defendant, under Florida law, loses his ‘stand your ground’ defense if he provoked the encounter — but he retains traditional self-defense if he reasonably believed his life was in danger and his only recourse was to employ deadly force,” he wrote.

Thus, if Zimmerman verbally provoked Martin, but Martin then got on top of Zimmerman and banged his head into the ground, broke his nose, bloodied his eyes and persisted in attacking Zimmerman — and if Zimmerman couldn’t protect himself from further attack except by shooting Martin — he would have the right to do that. (The prosecution has already admitted that it has no evidence that Zimmerman started the actual fight.)

[Shockwave]

Anyway, back to what I was saying, you'd think that simply his story with corroborating evidence would be enough to raise a reasonable doubt.
From what Ive read, the prosecution doesnt have a whole shit ton of evidence contradicting him.