Skip to main content

View Diary: Were the clothes of Trayvon Martin's killer examined for fluids, including blood and semen? (96 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Re-read my statement about alternative versions of (0+ / 0-)

    reality.  I wrote the following; "What you claim are facts-in-dispute are simply alternative versions of reality being manufactured by the shooter and his well-paid defense attorneys...."  I don't believe that "manufactured" versions of reality can be termed "disputed" facts.  In short, a "manufactured" version of reality is not based on objective facts.

    •  In a court of law, "manufactured" would mean (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pi Li, taffers

      "totally without any evidence whatsoever in support."  (Manufactured does NOT mean "not believable."  It typically is the case that someone's version of a disputed fact is not believed by the jury.)

      There is evidence that at some point, Martin was on top of Zimmerman throwing down punches in and MMA "ground and pound" style.  That, in and of itself, makes the notion that Martin was shot when he was "merely" walking home (i.e., he did not do anything else before being shot) disputed.    If you belief Good, something happened between Martin going home and Martin being shot.  What that is, and what actions provoked it, is disputed.

      You can choose not to believe Good. That does not make the fact "undisputed."  

      •  I heard a defense attorney make that "MMA" claim (0+ / 0-)

        initially in the cross-examination of Mr. Good.  And Mr. Good stated, at the outset, that he thought that the light-skinned person was on the bottom.  But later, Mr. Good clarified his testimony by stating that he could not actually see that well, and that all he could determine was that someone wearing a light, white, or red clothing was on the bottom, and that someone wearing a different color was on the top.  If you have evidence that a witness used the term "MMA ground and pound" without first being prompted by a defense attorney, then provide it.  And, by the way, wasn't it the shooter who had MMA training, not Trayvon?  If anyone was using MMA tactics, shouldn't it have been the person, i.e., the shooter, who was trained in MMA?
             And, even assuming that Trayvon was fighting back after being accosted by a stranger at night who was following him, does that prove that Trayvon was the aggressor or disprove that Trayvon was walking home from the store?  Where is the proof that Trayvon was engaged in criminal conduct, or conduct which justified his murder?  And, don't give me this argument the above being jury questions when not one of the jurors is African-American.  You gloss over the lack of a representative jury by apparently making the incredible assumption that all African-American males must willingly submit to being following and physically accosted by total strangers or must shoulder the blame if they are murdered after refusing to bow down to their would-be masters.

        •  You are making arguments as to why (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Pi Li, taffers

          you think the testimony of Mr. Good is not credible.  That's fine.  I'm sure the prosecution will make those same arguments.  

          My point remains -- the facts are disputed.  What you are saying are the arguments the prosecution will make. The defense will make contrary arguments.  I am not here to say which side the jury will believe.  My only point, from the beginning, is that the facts are disputed -- which means the each side has a different version of the facts, and each side will rely on the evidence that supports their side to make the arguments.  That is how trials work.  

          I nowhere assert that all African American males must willing submit to being followed and physically accosted by total strangers. I said that there is nothing illegal about someone following another person in a public place.  Of course, no one is allowed to physically accost another, and if one person physically accosts another, he can defend himself.  The big dispute in this case is who physically accosted whom first.  If the jury is convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman physically accosted Martin first, they should find Zimmerman guilty.  

          •  You are in error when you claim that following (0+ / 0-)

            a person is not a crime, a crime that most called stalking.  Following a criminal is legal, although not wise, but on this night Trayvon was an innocent.  Note that the shooter's defense team did not assert their self-defense strategies prior to trial because there is no legal system anywhere which would not have dismissed the shooter's claim of a right to pursue a person, murder that person, and then claim self-defense.  It is not a legal question of who struck who first; it is a question of who had a legal right to be in the place in which Trayvon and the shooter were present.  As noted elsewhere, Trayvon was 45 seconds away from his home and had a constitutional right to be traveling as he was doing.  On the other hand, the defense cannot cite any legally cognizant basis for the shooter's presence and murder of Trayvon.  It also appears that self-defense is an affirmative defense in Florida, meaning that the prosecution does not have to disprove self-defense until it is raised by the shooter's attorneys.  And since the trial judge is unlikely to grant a motion for a directed verdict of not guilty, the defense is going to be put into a crucible when attempting to raise the self-defense issue.  Thus, if the self-defense claim is dismissed as a matter of law, the jury's only consideration will be the "depraved heart" element, and that will determine how much time the shooter will spend in jail.  I, for one, think that the proof, and the shooter's lack of a viable self-defense claim, means that the shooter should have been charged with first-degree murder.

            •  Wrong. We've been through this before. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Pi Li
              You are in error when you claim that following (0+ / 0-)
              a person is not a crime, a crime that most called stalking.  
              That is legally wrong.  We've been through this before.  Florida's stalking law is found here.  You will notice that even the crime of misdemeanor stalking requires that the following be maliciously AND "repeatedly."  The Florida Courts have said that the word "repeatedly" means what you normally think it means -- different instances, separated by the passage of time.  In other words, you follow, you stop following, there is the passage of time where you are not following or attempting to follow, then you start following again . . . repeat.  

              See the 2008 case of T.B. v. State, 908 So. 2d 651:  

              Thus, engaging in a "series" of acts or acting "repeatedly" in the context of the statute means what the commonly approved usage of these words suggest -- acting more than once. Here, T.B. acted three times, each incident separated from the others by the passage of time; fifteen to twenty minutes between the first and second incidents, and the third, by another hour.
              No state in the country makes ONE instance of following someone in a public area illegal.  There would be a serious constitutional problem with that.  Zimmerman, just like Martin, had a complete right to walk along the public sidewalk wherever he felt like walking, even if it's walking behind Martin and following him.  You can't pass a law preventing person 1 from walking behind person 2, and watching him, him in a public place.  Stalking laws are only constitutional because they depend on repeated instances, and it is the repetition - not the following - that is harassing.  

              If Zimmerman had maliciously followed Martin on several different nights, with each instance separated by a period of time where he was not trying to follow Martin, you could argue misdemeanor stalking.  But one instance of following someone, even if you start the following in a car and end on foot, is NOT stalking under that law.  Following someone in a public place may not be smart, it may not be a good thing to do , but it's perfectly legal.

              You'll notice that the prosecution has NEVER used the word "stalking" in this trial.  They can't, because they are bound by the legal meaning, and this conduct is not stalking.  If the prosecution said Zimmerman was "stalking" Martin, that would likely prompt a mistrial.  

              •  By the definition of stalking you posted, Trayvon (0+ / 0-)

                was being stalked.  Rachel Jeantel testified that Trayvon stated that he had lost the shooter on one occasion, but that later, the shooter started following Trayvon again.  Thus, the shooter was following Trayvon on two, separate instances which were separated by time, and that is the definition ot stalking that you posted.  And you failed to address the Montijo v. Florida case I cited earlier which plainly establishes that a person requesting a jury instruction on self-defense cannot be the one who followed another person and acted aggressively.  Trayvon did not follow the shooter.
                    One more thing, You seem to believe that "the law" is some great compendium of rules and guidance which are uniformly applied to all, and that only white attorneys have the ability to discover, and comprehend, that great, pre-existing storehouse of law.  In fact, most white, legal commentators have recognized for decades that "the law" is a crapshoot of discretionary actions which are applied unevenly and more severely on non-whites than on whites.  Thus, the shooter's basic defense is that no white-skinned person should be convicted of shooting a disobedient, uppity-looking African-American male.

            •  It is not stalking under Florida law. (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site