- Joined
- Dec 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,138
- Reaction score
- 807
- Location
- Volunteer State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
An eyewitness known only as "John" claimed that he saw the guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to him, 'Help! Help!' and he told him to stop, and he was calling 911.
Since this story broke, many pro-zimmerman supporters became strongly convinced that Trayvon Martin was the aggressor and what this witness described was consistent with the story of Zimmerman's claim of self-defense.
Here are two part 1 and part 2 of my blog article I wrote about this witness' account that I find problematic:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/dolphinocean/601-john-witness-reliable-part-1.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/dolphinocean/602-john-witness-reliable-part-2.html
After reading my article, do you still believe you can rely on his claim to the Fox Orlando reporter during an interview on the afternnoon of Feb 27, the day after the fatal shooting?
An eyewitness known only as "John" claimed that he saw the guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to him, 'Help! Help!' and he told him to stop, and he was calling 911.
Since this story broke, many pro-zimmerman supporters became strongly convinced that Trayvon Martin was the aggressor and what this witness described was consistent with the story of Zimmerman's claim of self-defense.
Here are two part 1 and part 2 of my blog article I wrote about this witness' account that I find problematic:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/dolphinocean/601-john-witness-reliable-part-1.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/dolphinocean/602-john-witness-reliable-part-2.html
After reading my article, do you still believe you can rely on his claim to the Fox Orlando reporter during an interview on the afternnoon of Feb 27, the day after the fatal shooting?
So your logic is: CBS,ABC and other news networks messed up therefore Zimmerman's accounts are probably reliable?Considering the crap CBS,ABC and other news networks have played I would have to say that Zimmerman's accounts are probably reliable. The media has deliberately distorted facts. They edited the 911 tape to make it seem as though Zimmerman is a racist. They used a grainy low resolution video to say that Zimmerman was lying about his injuries. The media said that a mortician claimed that there were no injuries on Martin's hands to say that Zimmerman was lying about Martin assaulting him. The media also claimed that that a inaudible word in a 911 tape was the racial slur coon to make it look like Zimmerman is a racist who racially profiled. The media also placed a several year old photo of Zimmerman next to a 3-4 year old photo of Martin to make it look it look like some big huge bruiser murdered some little kid.
Can you please stay on topic?Bass-ackward. Burden of proof is on the prosecution to show evidence that it DIDN'T happen the way all existing evidence says it happened: an assault by Martin on Zim.
That's what I mean. But, pro-zimmerman supporters have already determined that this witness' account is the absolute truth that supported Zimmerfman's story even to the point of vilifying Trayvon Martin.John will have to testify under oath. He will only say what he thinks he saw. If he's filled in some parts in his own mind, the prosecution will pull that out.
Bass-ackward. Burden of proof is on the prosecution to show evidence that it DIDN'T happen the way all existing evidence says it happened: an assault by Martin on Zim.
Legally recognized affirmative defense- burden shifts to defendant.
So your logic is: CBS,ABC and other news networks messed up therefore Zimmerman's accounts are probably reliable?
What kind of logic is that? Well, never mind.
Bass-ackward. Burden of proof is on the prosecution to show evidence that it DIDN'T happen the way all existing evidence says it happened: an assault by Martin on Zim.
However, the burden of proof shifts in an affirmative defense. In such a circumstance, it is the duty of the defendant’s attorney to prove that though the defendant committed the criminal act, particular grounds make it excusable .
Your side put up as much spin by deliberately distorting facts and lying as those you accused of, so save your breadth on your hypocracy. You can google all those 911 calls called in from the eyewitnesses and even Zimmerman's own unedited call to the police non-emergency line to get the information without going to the media.If you mean they messed up by deliberately distorting facts and lying then yes they messed up.
The logic is who is more trust worthy. So far Zimmerman's accounts seem to be backed up.He said he was assaulted,the injuries on the back of his head and the injuries on Martin's hands indicate one was assaulted and the other was doing the assaulting.
They're just a group of gun toters that want to believe that they will be able to shoot to kill anyone that throws a punch at them.That's what I mean. But, pro-zimmerman supporters have already determined that this witness' account is the absolute truth that supported Zimmerfman's story even to the point of vilifying Trayvon Martin.
Yup, you have explained who was loosing the fight. Although I'm still interested in who started the fight. Aren't you?...
The logic is who is more trust worthy. So far Zimmerman's accounts seem to be backed up.He said he was assaulted,the injuries on the back of his head and the injuries on Martin's hands indicate one was assaulted and the other was doing the assaulting.
They're just a group of gun toters that want to believe that they will be able to shoot to kill anyone that throws a punch at them.
Then please heed your own advice and stop spewing speculative nonsense so I don't have to clean up the mess after you.The attempt, by the supporting OPINION posted, to discredit this witness is simply one person expressing their idea of probable events. The jury, with help from both the prosecution and defense, will have ample time to examine witness statements and physical evidence and make an INFORMED legal opinion as to what is, or is not, relevant based on the instructions of the judge. All of this 'semi-informed' speculation has no bearing on the outcome of the upcomming trial and is essentially useless babble.
Where is that a precedent?
Untitled Document
This is what watching Fox News does to a person. They genuinely believe that a dead person has the burden of proof.
BURDEN OF PROOF
The defendant has the burden of proving his or her affirmative defenses.
Hough v. Menses, 95 So.2d 410 (Fla. 1957)
First Union Nat. Bank of Fla. v. Ruiz, 785 So.2d 589 (Fla. App. 5 Dist. 2001)
Gilreath v. General Elec. Co., 751 So.2d 705 (Fla. App. 5 Dist. 2000)
Bankers Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 684 So.2d 246 (Fla. App. 2 Dist. 1996)
Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Holmes, 646 So.2d 266 (Fla. App. 3 Dist. 1994)
Where is that a precedent?
Untitled Document
This is what watching Fox News does to a person. They genuinely believe that a dead person has the burden of proof.
BURDEN OF PROOF
The defendant has the burden of proving his or her affirmative defenses.
Hough v. Menses, 95 So.2d 410 (Fla. 1957)
First Union Nat. Bank of Fla. v. Ruiz, 785 So.2d 589 (Fla. App. 5 Dist. 2001)
Gilreath v. General Elec. Co., 751 So.2d 705 (Fla. App. 5 Dist. 2000)
Bankers Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 684 So.2d 246 (Fla. App. 2 Dist. 1996)
Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Holmes, 646 So.2d 266 (Fla. App. 3 Dist. 1994)
The burden of proof is on the prosecution. Did the prosecution team get killed recently?
Not exactly.Since no one has mentioned it in this thread, I would just like to point out that the witness, "John", has since recanted his original story.
The burden of proof on a Criminal Charge is on the Prosecution.
The burden of proof on an Affirmative Defense is on the Defendant.
Two different things.
The burden of proof on a Criminal Charge is on the Prosecution.
The burden of proof on an Affirmative Defense is on the Defendant.
Two different things.
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?