The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[25Caliber]

Well hello forum and good morning, sunshine!!

You guys/gals and in betweens are rockin the thread today...I actually have to catch up...I have a song Ill play and then I'll tell you how you should feel about it coming up...

 

[testarosa]

Well hello forum and good morning, sunshine!!

You guys/gals and in betweens are rockin the thread today...I actually have to catch up...I have a song Ill play and then I'll tell you how you should feel about it coming up...

Can't wait!! We hang around every day for you to show up and tell us how to feel.

 

[testarosa]

Well hello forum and good morning, sunshine!!

You guys/gals and in betweens are rockin the thread today...I actually have to catch up...I have a song Ill play and then I'll tell you how you should feel about it coming up...

Can't wait!! We hang around every day for you to show up and tell us how to feel.

Go to The Jukebox and play some songs and pick up some reps, you've gotten better, but it's still kind of embarrassing. I'm all repped up with my over 100, I can stop with reps now, goal met. I started on about page 494 of The Jukebox and then had some fun with [MENTION=26838]Ropey[/MENTION] a while later.

 

[animallover]

Well hello forum and good morning, sunshine!!

You guys/gals and in betweens are rockin the thread today...I actually have to catch up...I have a song Ill play and then I'll tell you how you should feel about it coming up...

Can't wait!! We hang around every day for you to show up and tell us how to feel.

ROFL

 

[25Caliber]

Well hello forum and good morning, sunshine!!

You guys/gals and in betweens are rockin the thread today...I actually have to catch up...I have a song Ill play and then I'll tell you how you should feel about it coming up...

Can't wait!! We hang around every day for you to show up and tell us how to feel.

Well I do what i can...lol...oh testa testa...one of my faves of all time!

 

[WorldWatcher]

WW So tell me how this is going to go. If the defense is to make a prima facie showing of self defense (every thing I hear locally says that will be their move) does the prosecution go to bat first as normal and the defense actually begins their self defense showing when it's their turn, then the prosecution would have to come back around to prove it wasn't self defense -- ??

First of all I can’t tell you how this is going to go. I’m not a lawyer, don’t claim to be one. Probably wouldn’t qualify to work in the legal profession as my parents were married – to each other. I’m from a blue collar family that done good. I’m just some nameless schmuck on an internet political board talking about things.

A success of a prima facie self-defense claim is based on one simple thing, not only that you show you were in a situation where you exercised self-defense, but were in a situation where you were self-defense is an allowed defense. As an analogy the event(s) of that evening are a movie – things that occurred over a period of time, as opposed to a photograph which captures an instant in time. Some want to focus as on event at the time of the firearm discharge (photograph) and ignore the events leading up to that frame (movie). For such a case the defense is going to focus as much as possible on that instant in time where Zimmerman claims he fired the shot in self-defense. The prosecution is going to attempt to show that Zimmerman lost his self-defense immunity because he was responsible for creating the conditions under which self-defense was needed. They may even try to show that Zimmerman was the initial physical aggressor because Zimmerman’s stories do not conform to the physical evidence.

Which will the jury do? I have no clue, that all depends on how the trial progresses and how honest the jurors were/are about ignoring pre-trial publicity and basing their decision limited only the evidence presented in court, to the law as explained by the Judge, and how that “evidence” can (and should be) viewed by expert witness testimony. The prosecutions job will be to lay out their case and attempt to muddy the waters for the defense, the defense’s job will be to lay out their case and muddy the waters for the prosecution.

My understanding is the prosecution goes first after opening statements, once they rest the defense presents their case, the prosecution then gets to present a rebuttal case to the defenses case. I think (though I’m not sure) that the defense gets a final rebuttal to anything new the prosecution may have brought up in their rebuttal.

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Thanks Tess. I thought I made myself clear.

So, in a nutshell, if it's proven GZ was the initial aggressor, then he cannot claim self-defense - that he was justified in killing TM. And apparently aggression does not need to be physical in order to qualify or be classified as provocative or aggressive. From what I get out of these legal minds is that words or threats could be considered aggression. I guess it will depend on the testimony of TM's girlfriend on the phone at the time GZ and TM had their initial interaction.

Not quite.

The initial aggressor in the commission of a forcible felony (murder, rape, felonious assault, assault with a deadly weapon, etc.) loses their self-defense immunity.

The initial aggressor without the commission of a forcible felony looses their self-defense immunity for the use of deadly force under 776.041 unless they can show that they have exhausted all reasonable means of escape or they have withdrawn from the altercation and clearly indicates to the assailant their desire to withdraw but the assailant continues with the altercation.

So the prosecution has to prove the intent to commit Murder (forcible felony) or they have to show that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor and failed to take a reasonable means of escape when it presented itself.



Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine


>>>>

 

[testarosa]

The SCOTUS on 'fighting words.'

The fighting-words doctrine was first articulated in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). Chaplinsky was convicted of violating a New Hampshire statute that prohibited the use of offensive, insulting language toward persons in public places after making several inflammatory comments to a city official. The Court, in upholding the statute as constitutional, set down those famous words:

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

Tellingly, despite continued reaffirmation of the fighting-words doctrine, the Supreme Court has declined to uphold any convictions for fighting words since Chaplinsky.

In fact, in Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), the Court immediately began a long process of narrowing and reshaping the broad scope of the original fighting-words doctrine. Terminiello was charged with breaching the peace after publicly insulting a group of adversaries. While not addressing whether Terminiello's speech constituted fighting words, the Court found that the breach of the peace statute in question was overbroad because it permitted convictions for both fighting words and constitutionally protected expression. Concluding that speech that merely causes anger or outrage does not amount to fighting words, the Court opined that speech is protected unless the expression is "likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious intolerable evil that rises above mere inconvenience or annoyance." The Court explicitly stated that it would not assume that certain words inevitably provoke violent reactions by individuals. Rather, the Court's analysis focuses on the context in which the words were uttered, not merely the content of the words themselves.

More at:
freedomforum.org: What is the Fighting Words Doctrine?

Are you still on the hypothetical about the yelling and grabbing arm? I made that up, it was pretend. Go back back back! I want to know about the prima facie the defense is going to do and how the trial is going to go with the defense presentation of self defense. Give me a legal-less hypothetical on how the process is going to work.

 

[testarosa]

Okay, so Sunny - if the defense is going to show evidence of self defense, and the prosecution has to disprove that beyond reasonable doubt, plus show guilt also. Is the defense going to do their self defense claim pre-prosecution or when they're up to bat? Then does the prosecution have to come back around again to disprove their claim of self defense and guilt, or is this a motion/pre trial that happens first?

 

[WorldWatcher]

The SCOTUS on 'fighting words.'

Just curious, what does that have to do with the discussion about someone following someone else half-way across a housing development who tried to evade at least twice. That the person followed in a vehicle and then chased them on foot created a situation where they could be perceived as provoking hostile action by creating an imminent treat (from Martins perspective)?

Let's take a similar situation, if some guy was following my daughter half-way across campus in a car and when she tried to escape that individual jumped out and began pursuit (from her perspective) is there any doubt that the male following her could be perceived as a threat?


>>>>

 

[king.solomon]

I'm new here. I AM King Solomon.

 

[testarosa]

I'm new here. I AM King Solomon.

Good to know.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

I'm new here. I AM King Solomon.

Welcome to the forum.

Now then, where are your 'mines of gold'?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4jL-MISXV4]King Solomon's Mines - YouTube[/ame]

 

[testarosa]

I'm new here. I AM King Solomon.

Welcome to the forum.

Now then, where are your 'mines of gold'?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4jL-MISXV4]King Solomon's Mines - YouTube[/ame]

Busted A gut.

Welcome to THE forum.

Fixed it.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

The SCOTUS on 'fighting words.'

The fighting-words doctrine was first articulated in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). Chaplinsky was convicted of violating a New Hampshire statute that prohibited the use of offensive, insulting language toward persons in public places after making several inflammatory comments to a city official. The Court, in upholding the statute as constitutional, set down those famous words:

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

Tellingly, despite continued reaffirmation of the fighting-words doctrine, the Supreme Court has declined to uphold any convictions for fighting words since Chaplinsky.

In fact, in Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), the Court immediately began a long process of narrowing and reshaping the broad scope of the original fighting-words doctrine. Terminiello was charged with breaching the peace after publicly insulting a group of adversaries. While not addressing whether Terminiello's speech constituted fighting words, the Court found that the breach of the peace statute in question was overbroad because it permitted convictions for both fighting words and constitutionally protected expression. Concluding that speech that merely causes anger or outrage does not amount to fighting words, the Court opined that speech is protected unless the expression is "likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious intolerable evil that rises above mere inconvenience or annoyance." The Court explicitly stated that it would not assume that certain words inevitably provoke violent reactions by individuals. Rather, the Court's analysis focuses on the context in which the words were uttered, not merely the content of the words themselves.

More at:
freedomforum.org: What is the Fighting Words Doctrine?

Are you still on the hypothetical about the yelling and grabbing arm? I made that up, it was pretend. Go back back back! I want to know about the prima facie the defense is going to do and how the trial is going to go with the defense presentation of self defense. Give me a legal-less hypothetical on how the process is going to work.

I took the SCOTUS on fighting words as meaning that whatever words were spoken between M and Z would not be viewed as provoking violent action from either. The words alone won't mean a thing; however, if there is a situation where someone is telling you, "You are going to die tonight!", while reaching for a weapon (either one you have on yourself or one they have on them), then those words could be viewed as a violent act. The one saying those words could then be seen as the aggressor.

Am I right in how I'm understanding this?

 

[testarosa]

The SCOTUS on 'fighting words.'



More at:
freedomforum.org: What is the Fighting Words Doctrine?

Are you still on the hypothetical about the yelling and grabbing arm? I made that up, it was pretend. Go back back back! I want to know about the prima facie the defense is going to do and how the trial is going to go with the defense presentation of self defense. Give me a legal-less hypothetical on how the process is going to work.

I took the SCOTUS on fighting words as meaning that whatever words were spoken between M and Z would not be viewed as provoking violent action from either. The words alone won't mean a thing; however, if there is a situation where someone is telling you, "You are going to die tonight!", while reaching for a weapon (either one you have on yourself or one they have on them), then those words could be viewed as a violent act. The one saying those words could then be seen as the aggressor.

Am I right in how I'm understanding this?

Except, we don't know what was actually said. I believe-ish the 1st interview and the day after video re-enactment. But... there was a lot of oh sh!t and post adrenaline/reaction/action going on, so... I can only actually take into account the real evidence, the 911, the witness (grain of salt) statements, the physical evidence, the gf call... that's out the window, whatever was said on that call she has gone so far from the truth she's in another state, the rest is so so speculation and one sided testimony and more speculation, maps, what if's, junk.

Looking for the hard stuff.... as usual ;-)

 

[WorldWatcher]

The SCOTUS on 'fighting words.'



More at:
freedomforum.org: What is the Fighting Words Doctrine?

Are you still on the hypothetical about the yelling and grabbing arm? I made that up, it was pretend. Go back back back! I want to know about the prima facie the defense is going to do and how the trial is going to go with the defense presentation of self defense. Give me a legal-less hypothetical on how the process is going to work.

I took the SCOTUS on fighting words as meaning that whatever words were spoken between M and Z would not be viewed as provoking violent action from either. The words alone won't mean a thing; however, if there is a situation where someone is telling you, "You are going to die tonight!", while reaching for a weapon (either one you have on yourself or one they have on them), then those words could be viewed as a violent act. The one saying those words could then be seen as the aggressor.

Am I right in how I'm understanding this?

From my understaing, not quite.

From the same link that Sunshine provided:

"The Supreme Court reversed Street's conviction because his comments, considered a possible factor in his conviction, were constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. Emphasizing that the mere offensiveness of words does not strip them of constitutional protection, the Court again noted that fighting words must present an actual threat of immediate violence, not merely offensive content."​

The fighting words doctrine does not protect whatever words are spoken. Only offensive speech. If a person conveys a thread of immediate violence, that is not protected under fighting words.


ETA: Just to be clear I'm not saying there is any evidence of fighting words that night.


>>>>

 

[king.solomon]

Thanks guys and gals! Sorry, I spent all my gold on pagan wives! Lol

 

[king.solomon]

I have absolutely no idea how to navigate this site. Let me go and try to upload a pic and edit my pro.

 

[25Caliber]

Worldwatcher seems like a pretty smart dude.