- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
- Messages
- 34,676
- Reaction score
- 19,448
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Boo's experiences in life aren't really relevant imho.But have you ever seen someone attack someone first and not leave some kind of mark on that person?
But have you ever seen someone attack someone first and not leave some kind of mark on that person?
But have you ever seen someone attack someone first and not leave some kind of mark on that person?
Boo's experiences in life aren't really relevant imho.
If I take a swing at you and I miss, have I attacked you?
Did I leave a mark?
There're numerous possible scenarios where there can be an attack and no "marks" are left.
fwiw, I don't know that the ME's report will coincide exactly with the funeral director's assessment.
From what I have seen I kind of agree with what I think she was saying.That's key.... Also I wonder if treyvon's mother who called it an "accident" earlier would come into play.
You mean no brain?Mike is all foam and no beer
But have you ever seen someone attack someone first and not leave some kind of mark on that person?
Open hand strikes. Gut punches. There are all sorts of ways to hide an attack.
But have you ever seen someone attack someone first and not leave some kind of mark on that person?
Still unable to provide facts.
You still going with that 250lbs thing?Zim states that Trayvon knocked him on his back with one punch. That was some punch to knock a 250 lb man down. How did he avoid even bruises on his knuckles?
I provided. You disappeared. Thought you were gonna post your facts?
Ok Michael. I'll bite, again.
I believe that Zimmerman acted in self defense based on the information that has come out.
Facts as I know them.
Zimmerman was following Martin.
Zimmerman was told that he didn't need to continue.
Zimmerman lost Martin.
Zimmerman and Martin had a brief conversation.
Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him.
This is true. But how could the prosecution prove that? The prosecution cannot just suggest something that might have happened.
Is that actually what needs to be proven at trial?
I thought that was just to make an arrest.
I thought at trial that self-defense is an affirmative defense where the defendant has to show that he was acting in self-defense.
Yet... he is not on trial for "shooting and killing someone"...... as that general statement is not against the law.That's not the case here. He's not having to prove his innocence. When you declare innocence you are declaring that you didn't do something. He did in fact shoot and kill someone. So he admittedly did something that he is not declaring innocence of. From that point on, he has to prove that he what he already admitted that he did, he did so in self defense.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ear-his-safety-w-169-a-10.html#post1060388560
even though the laws vary from place to place, it still shows where the burden lies, with the defense.
If they can't meet that burden then the prosecution wins afaict.
That's key.... Also I wonder if treyvon's mother who called it an "accident" earlier would come into play.
From what I have seen I kind of agree with what I think she was saying.
I don't think that Z accidentally discharged his weapon. I do think that it was an accident that the situation came about and became what it did.
I am not seeing cold-bloodedness about Z's action or apparent intentions. Irresponsible, short-sighted, possibly. But cold-blooded, not likely.
I suspect it has more to do with "hot blood" than cold blood.
Stop playing games.It certainly would make it a lot easier for attorneys representing people charged with homicide offenses if the attorneys weren't obligated to demonstrate that their clients acted in self-defense.
idk about the specific charge.How can the prosecution meet the burden of the elements of 2nd degree murder without showing proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed this crime?
They do have the burden of proof in this case. But Zimmerman has conceded a lot of that for them. He has conceded that he did the shooting. Shooting someone is illegal except under certain circumstances. He has the obligation to show that this shooting was under some set of circumstances that make the homicide lawful.The state has the burden of proof in any case.
Some people are wrongly convicted.If this were true..... all human beings should wear cameras on them to ensure they don't get prosecuted and convicted of defending themselves because they may not be able to prove it outside of their own statement.
idk about the specific charge.
My reasoning is thus
Since there's a dead guy and a guy who says he shot the dead guy all that's left is figuring out if the homicide was justified or excusable or what have you.
If it's not justified, excused or w/e, then it's a crime as it is not a lawful killing.
The default is that killing someone is a crime unless conditions a through z are met. If the conditions are not met, then we're stuck with a crime.
Since Z says he did kill Martin, the only question left is whether or not the killing was lawful. If he can't show that it's lawful, then the default is that it's unlawful.
But, that doesn't necessarily speak to the details of a 2nd degree murder charge, just that some charge is valid.
Pretty sure that's what affirmative defense means though--its the defense obligation to provide it.It just doesn't sit right with me that folks would expect someone to be able to prove that they defended themselves beyond their own statement or face murder charges.
It would seem more reasonable that the state would have to show that George Zimmerman did NOT act in self defense if he is alleging that he defended himself.
The state would have to meet the burden that the killing was unlawful in some way.
When people claim he has to PROVE he was defending himself or go to jail, my mind keeps wandering back to situations in which one man attempts to kill another man and he defends himself, but there is nobody around to assist him in proving his case of self defense, so he is automatically guilty, with the state not having to show any burden of proof that the killing was unlawful or unjustified self defense.
Makes me want to go out and buy a small camera to hide on my clothing at all times that has a long battery life and large capacity for storage so I'll always have proof of everything that happens around me.
Scary thought, that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?