It means a lot. This is just the inconsistencies in his accounts and reenactment. There are many inconsistencies also in the physical evidence. The prosecutor can certainly do it beyond a reasonable doubt. The problem is that in Florida, such as in Casey Anthony case, some jurors expect the prosecutors to prove beyond absolute doubt. If Zimmerman's defense attorney is able to sit all the jurors from those so-called "conservative" people such as you, then no doubt Zimmerman will walk free even if there is a video at the scene from the house nearby that showed Zimmerman fired at Trayvon's chest while he was kneeling on the ground begging for his life.
There is more than enough to disprove Zimmerman's account based on forensic evidence alone. Forensic evidence isn't speculative.
of course you don;t have to support anything. But, you don;t get to tell fancy fairy tales to make Zimmerman looks like a fairy god mother either.
The bolded part doesn't make sense. Isn't he claiming self-defense?They aren't "fancy fairy tales". In this case, Zimmerman is the defendant. Therefore, because the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that self-defense was not applicable to Zimmerman's case, Zimmerman is granted "presumed innocence".
You are barking up the wrong tree. I am not arguing about Murder 2. That's for the special prosecutor to heck it out. She has all the evidence in her hand, I don't. All I am focusing is manslaughter and criminal recklessness.Meaning, if the prosecution cannot PROVE, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense, he is presumed innocent of murder in the 2nd degree. The argument isn't over the "shooting", the case is about "murder 2", and if there is EVIDENCE to PROVE murder 2. Based on what we've seen publicly, there is nowhere near enough evidence to support murder 2. Manslaughter perhaps, but definately not murder 2.
I know this pains some people, but it's the facts of the case that determine a man's guilt, not public opinion or hypothetical situations. The jury will be thuroughly instructed about the presumption of innocence before the trial ever starts. Zimmerman is "presumed" innocent of "murder 2", all the way up until the prosecution can PROVE otherwise. All Zimmerman has a burden of is the burden of evidentiary finding, not the burden of proof.
Ric27 is 100% correct.
The bolded part doesn't make sense. Isn't he claiming self-defense?
You are barking up the wrong tree. I am not arguing about Murder 2. That's for the special prosecutor to heck it out. She has all the evidence in her hand, I don't. All I am focusing is manslaughter and criminal recklessness.
So, no, Ric is completely wrong.
I know some people like to live in never never land, but let me bring you back to reality.
George Zimmerman is being tried for MURDER 2, not manslaughter, and not criminal recklessness. MURDER 2.
The prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that self-defense is not applicable. Let me make this make sense to you.....lol
In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that George Zimmerman's defense is not valid. That self-defense is not applicable. Understand?
He's claiming self-defense. His burden is "burden of evidentiary finding", which he has in his possession already. The prosecution's burden, is the "burden of proof". Meaning, they must PROVE that it wasn't self-defense. Do you understand what this means? It means Zimmerman doesn't have to "prove" he acted in self-defense. He just has to offer up a "reasonable and clear" reason he shot Martin. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.
Therefore, Ric, as I said before, is 100% right. He understands the law. Perhaps you should study up on "affirmative defense", and "presumed innocence", and "burden of proof" before you argue about it further?
Why are you locked in the La La Land and yet accused people of being in the Never Never Land?I know some people like to live in never never land, but let me bring you back to reality.
George Zimmerman is being tried for MURDER 2, not manslaughter, and not criminal recklessness. MURDER 2.
The prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that self-defense is not applicable. Let me make this make sense to you.....lol
In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that George Zimmerman's defense is not valid. That self-defense is not applicable. Understand?
He's claiming self-defense. His burden is "burden of evidentiary finding", which he has in his possession already. The prosecution's burden, is the "burden of proof". Meaning, they must PROVE that it wasn't self-defense. Do you understand what this means? It means Zimmerman doesn't have to "prove" he acted in self-defense. He just has to offer up a "reasonable and clear" reason he shot Martin. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.
Therefore, Ric, as I said before, is 100% right. He understands the law. Perhaps you should study up on "affirmative defense", and "presumed innocence", and "burden of proof" before you argue about it further?
I know some people like to live in never never land, but let me bring you back to reality.
George Zimmerman is being tried for MURDER 2, not manslaughter, and not criminal recklessness. MURDER 2....
and please keep in mind that Z is innocent till proven guilty.
Got to ask, what difference would it make if his head was slammed 12 times or 50 times?
I know some people like to live in never never land, but let me bring you back to reality.
George Zimmerman is being tried for MURDER 2, not manslaughter, and not criminal recklessness. MURDER 2.
The prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that self-defense is not applicable. Let me make this make sense to you.....lol
In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that George Zimmerman's defense is not valid. That self-defense is not applicable. Understand?
He's claiming self-defense. His burden is "burden of evidentiary finding", which he has in his possession already. The prosecution's burden, is the "burden of proof". Meaning, they must PROVE that it wasn't self-defense. Do you understand what this means? It means Zimmerman doesn't have to "prove" he acted in self-defense. He just has to offer up a "reasonable and clear" reason he shot Martin. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.
Therefore, Ric, as I said before, is 100% right. He understands the law. Perhaps you should study up on "affirmative defense", and "presumed innocence", and "burden of proof" before you argue about it further?
For self defense to apply, Trayvon had to assault Zim. Did Trayvon assault Zim? Part of assault is that Zim must have been in actuial fear of serious bocily injury. What evidence is there that Zim was afraid of Trayvon.
Zim had a hollow point bullet in the chamber of a semi-automatic pistol, with no safety, other than pulling the trigger firmly. Zim was not afraid of Trayvon. Zim yelled for help so that he could get wtinesses, so that when he shot Zim, that he could CLAIM self defense. In fact, that is why the detective wanted to charge Zim with manslaughter, because there was not assualt by Trayvon, because Zim had no fear of Trayvon, at any time.
Trayvon punched Zim in self defense, because Zim was going into his jacket apparently to get a knife or a gun, after threateningly asking Trayvon, "What are YOU doing here!"
Zim could have run back to his truck, if he was afraid. Zim had no fear of Trayvon at any point in the exchange. Zim was ready to pull the trigger from at least the time he got out of his truck, and the 911 Disp[atcher told him not to follow Trayvon, as Trayvon ran away from Zim, and Zim tried to follow.
Zim did not tell his wife that he got beaten up. Zim told his wife that he had shot someone. Zim set up Trayvon, to aggrate and threaten Trayvon, till Trayvon acted in self-defense. Trayvon was being intimmidated about 100 feet from the house where he was staying. Trayvon is the one who had a right to stand his ground.
//
Not in this case. He he is claiming self-defense. By doing this the burden of proof shifts to him. This in affect makes him guilty until proven innocent.
self-defense is what's known as an "affirmative defense", which basically means that you're admitting you did it, but you're claiming you're not responsible for some reason (in this case, because he was defending himself; insanity is another affirmative defense). My understanding is that raising an affirmative defense switches the burden of proof to the defendant.
Now I do understand that Florida law is not always like the rest of the country. I am not expert on Florida law so it is possible I am wrong on this. Please correct me if that is the case.
it really is a nice tale. Now you have to prove it and find 6 jurors to agree. Good luck with that. It's highly unlikely that will ever occur.
in FL, the jury can choose to convict him of Manslaughter rather than Murder 2, because he was charged with Murder 2.
this is a fact.
For self defense to apply, Trayvon had to assault Zim. Did Trayvon assault Zim? Part of assault is that Zim must have been in actuial fear of serious bocily injury. What evidence is there that Zim was afraid of Trayvon.
Zim had a hollow point bullet in the chamber of a semi-automatic pistol, with no safety, other than pulling the trigger firmly. Zim was not afraid of Trayvon. Zim yelled for help so that he could get wtinesses, so that when he shot Trayvon, that he could CLAIM self defense. In fact, that is why the detective wanted to charge Zim with manslaughter, because there was not assualt by Trayvon, because Zim had no fear of Trayvon, at any time.
Trayvon punched Zim in self defense, because Zim was going into his jacket apparently to get a knife or a gun, after threateningly asking Trayvon, "What are YOU doing here!"
Zim could have run back to his truck, if he was afraid. Zim had no fear of Trayvon at any point in the exchange. Zim was ready to pull the trigger from at least the time he got out of his truck, and the 911 Disp[atcher told him not to follow Trayvon, as Trayvon ran away from Zim, and Zim tried to follow.
Zim did not tell his wife that he got beaten up. Zim told his wife that he had shot someone. Zim set up Trayvon, to aggrate and threaten Trayvon, till Trayvon acted in self-defense. Trayvon was being intimmidated about 100 feet from the house where he was staying. Trayvon is the one who had a right to stand his ground.
//
Debate me. Give any glimpses of any fear displayed by Zim, of Trayvon.
Agreed. Sadly that is what the anti-Zim side has been reduced to. He's not the first. Probably won't be the last. It is possible they may find a juror or two to believe that. But all 6? Not a chance.Wow. Just wow...
Agreed. Sadly that is what the anti-Zim side has been reduced to. He's not the first. Probably won't be the last. It is possible they may find a juror or two to believe that. But all 6? Not a chance.
Believe what?
Well, one of the guy's claims that Zimm was calling for help not to get people to help him, but just so he could have witnesses to watch the shootin... Don't believe they will ever find 6 jurors to believe that. That Zimm really had no fear after having his nose broken and Trayvon jumping on him. 6 jurors, unlikely.
Another individual's claims that Zimm tripped broke his own nose then rubbed rocks into his head - not going to find 6 to believe that. Assuming, there isn't some bombshell evidence we just are not aware of yet.
It is possible that a jury may find that Zimm could have avoided the situation by not leaving his truck or identifying himself. However, I am not convinced that negates Zimm's right to self defense after Trayvon continues with his actions.
"Serino's statement made note of the fact that Zimmerman had called police to report the "suspicious" presence of a black male on at least four prior occasions. Just a few weeks before the killing, one of the black men had broken into a neighbor's home.
"Zimmerman, by his statements made to the call taker and recorded for review and his statements made to investigators following the shooting death of Martin, made it clear that he had already reached a faulty conclusion as to Martin's purpose for being in the neighborhood," Serino wrote.
He said Zimmerman spotted Martin twice, but didn't use the opportunity to introduce himself. Zimmerman said he was afraid, but Serino was skeptical.
"His actions are inconsistent with those of a person who has stated he was in fear of another subject," Serino added. "Investigative findings show that George Michael Zimmerman had at least two opportunities to speak with Trayvon Benjamin Martin in order to defuse the circumstances surrounding the encounter. On at least two occasions, George Michael Zimmerman failed to identify himself as a concerned resident or a neighborhood watch member to Trayvon Benjamin Martin."
I didn't trust you which is why I looked for, and found, the video you speak of ... and you are indeed correct. He does tell Zimmerman to lie to those questions. I retract my statement and apologize.You can look at the info that was released by the prosecutors office, either the video itself or the list of 8 questions that were asked. There were two control questions (C) that Zimm was instructed to lie about (the green wall and the speeding ticket) so they can find the reaction when he lies. There were irrelevant questions (IR) and there were relevant question (R).
Because it is the easiest to find right now, you can click on the link and follwo the hyperlinked "questons". That will take you to the list of questions - the C = cntrol and are the two he was instructed to lie about. If you don't trust me, find the entire video. The officer specifically told him to lie on those two questions.
George Zimmerman Passed Police Lie Detector Test Day After Trayvon Martin Killing | The Smoking Gun
The only inconsistencies that mean anything are in your thoughts.All these glaring inconsistencies of Zimmerman means nothing? (Not including other inconsistencies in other physical evidence).
No, it doesn'tIf it's true that Zimmerman was instructed to lie about it, then it invalidates the test, i.e. the test is no good.
Look at the video again. Are you still going to discount those inconsistencies as meaningless or are just in my head?The only inconsistencies that mean anything are in your thoughts.
No, it doesn't
There is no inconsistencies. Therefore they are in the eye of the beholder.Look at the video again. Are you still going to discount those inconsistencies as meaningless or are just in my head?
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?