- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 34,478
- Reaction score
- 17,282
- Location
- Southwestern U.S.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
If you're going to analize something, you can leave me out of it.
If you're going to analize something, you can leave me out of it.
You can debate any one of a hundred different aspect of this case, but the bottom line is this...
In order for the state to prove Zimmerman's actions were not done in self defense, they have to rip Zimmerman's story to shreds from the time of the confrontation, until he shot Martin. That's all that really matters...
Here's Zimmerman's story, broke down into 4 pieces:
View attachment 67149850
Now let's see where we stand so far now that the state is about to wrap up their case... I'll start with #1
What evidence has the state presented to show that Zimmerman was not walking east on the sidewalk back toward his truck?
A: None
What evidence has the state presented to show that Martin did not come out of the shadows and confront Zimmerman?
A: None
What evidence has the state presented to show that Martin did not initiate the violence by punching Zimmerman in the face, smashing and possibly breaking his nose?
A: None
What evidence has the state presented that indicates Zimmerman initiated the physical contact, not Martin?
A: None
What evidence has the state presented to show that the confrontation did not take place at the "T"?
A: None
What evidence has the state presented to show that the events that took place at the "T" did not happen the way Zimmerman described?
A: None
How many witnesses have provided testimony that contradicts, or might contradict, anything said in #1
A: 1 - Witness Selene claims she heard some running headed north toward the "T" just before the confrontation, but didn't see anyone.
Here are how all the witnesses testified on #1:
View attachment 67149851
I'll do some more tomorrow... Anyone want to take a crack at this one, or another, go for it.
You have mixed up east and west.
No, you're very original premise in the OP is that the state has to disprove Z's statements. That's a fallacy. As soon as Z claimed self defense, the burden of proof relating to self defense is 100% upon the defense, not required for the state to disprove it's possibility, but the defenses job to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. I seriously doubt they will be able to do that.So. spelling is the only thing aboit this post thatcan be challenged...
That says a lot,
No, you're very original premise in the OP is that the state has to disprove Z's statements. That's a fallacy. As soon as Z claimed self defense, the burden of proof relating to self defense is 100% upon the defense, not required for the state to disprove it's possibility, but the defenses job to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. I seriously doubt they will be able to do that.
The state's case is insurmountable. Not only has the state failed utterly to show fact beyond a reasonable doubt, they must also show George Zimmerman could NOT be acting in self defense. When there are more witnesses that corroborate George's version of events, which by the way he recounted many times, WITHOUT information about what witnesses would say, the state cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Again, all the "periphery actions and events make great discussion but are LEGALLY irrelevant. Case law supports George Zimmerman as Mark O'Mara eloquently outlined yesterday during motion to acquit, which of course the judge instantly dismissed.
George Zimmerman had injuries from a physical altercation, Trayvon Martin had none. Can someone explain how, logically, it's Martin calling for help repeatedly on the 911 recording? Also when you listen to this recording the yells for help are not constant, but intermittent. If we hallucinate for a moment, if someone is pointing a gun at you why would you EVER stop yelling for help? Common sense tells you it would be a constant yelling and "he's got a gun going to shoot me". On the other hand someone getting an "mma style ground and pound" and fearing for his life, would be interrupted by the blows.
The entire case boils down to this question for me. Does someone who endured a broken nose, and head even, by the STATE's witnesses, making contact with cement at the VERY least (again according to state's witnesses) three times, have the right to use lethal force in order to end the altercation. I believe the evidence and case law point to an overwhelming YES.
No you're wrong.... Once a defendant has claimed self-defense the burden of proof regarding the self defense is on the defendant. All the state has to prove is that he killed someone, and that's not even in question. If the state further wants M2 then they also have to prove a certain level of intent and maliciousness, but they don't have to disprove Z's self-defense, that's all on Z.Wow, where do you get the above stated OPINION about the law?? This statement is DIAMETRICALLY opposed to law.
The LAW states the prosecution has in fact TWO burdens of proof. They have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" George Zimmerman is guilty of murder 2. They ALSO have the burden of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt", George Zimmerman could NOT be using self defense.
The ONLY thing the defense must do is create a "reasonable" doubt. The state's OWN witnesses have created the reasonable doubt.
No, you're very original premise in the OP is that the state has to disprove Z's statements. That's a fallacy. As soon as Z claimed self defense, the burden of proof relating to self defense is 100% upon the defense, not required for the state to disprove it's possibility, but the defenses job to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. I seriously doubt they will be able to do that.
Apparently more than you regarding this. Probably because I was specifically curious about who had the burden of proof, so I looked it up. Ask me much anything else about the law, and you'd be right.You know nothing of the law.
You have already been shown to be wrong about that. And yet you continue to spout the same false info. Strange?
Your link shows you to be wrong.Darlin' I have provided above the link to show the accuracy, and yet you provide no evidence to your OPINION and misunderstanding regarding a defense of self-defense.
Besides your link showing you are wrong, you are blatantly telling an untruth as I previously proved the information for you.Darlin' I have provided above the link to show the accuracy, and yet you provide no evidence to your OPINION and misunderstanding regarding a defense of self-defense.
First of all. He has not been caught lying.Can you (or more importantly can Z and his lawyers) prove that? The burden of proof changes to the defendant in a self-defense plea. All we have to date is Z's word for what happened, and though fluxuation in the story is expected under normal truth-iness, he's been caught in numerous other un-related directly to the events of that night that call his ability or willingness to be fully honest into question.
That resides totally in the accusers imagination.
Secondly, the burden does not change in an affirmative defense case.
The prosecution still has to prove a crime happened.
They still must prove every element.
The defenses burden is to make a "showing" of evidence sufficient to generate a jury instruction for self-defense.
This burden has already been met by cross examination of the prosecutions witnesses as well as the prosecution submitting evidence of Zimmerman saying he did and his reasons why.
Zimmerman only has to make a showing.
The Prosecutors burden is to prove he did not act in self-defense.
Even O'Mara has said as much in his interviews.
The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense.
Presenting an affirmative defense offers no relief to the government in what they
must prove. Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977). Rather, if the defense
generates an affirmative defense, the government must then disprove the defense
generally beyond a reasonable doubt. Mullaney, 421 U.S. at 704; U.S. v. Jackson,
569 F.2d 1003, 1008 n.12 (7th Cir. 1978)(emphasis added).
Pay attention this time as you obviously didn't before.
From what I previously provided, specifically speaking about the burdens.
(I formatted it differently so maybe you could understand it this time.)
UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Code:[B][COLOR="#000000"]UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES[/COLOR][/B][SIZE=1] [...] [/SIZE][B][COLOR="#000000"]D. Burdens[/COLOR][/B] The term “affirmative defense” seems inextricably tied to arguments about burden shifting. Three different burdens exist; [INDENT][COLOR="#0000ff"][U][COLOR="#000000"][B]burden of proof[/B] (always on the government),[/COLOR][/U][/COLOR] [B][COLOR="#000000"]burden of production[/COLOR][/B] (normally on the defense),and [B][COLOR="#000000"]burden of persuasion[/COLOR][/B] (normally back on the government).[/INDENT] The burden of proof to prove the essential elements of the crime charged BRD starts with and[highlight] [COLOR="#000000"]ALWAYS stays with the Government[/COLOR][/highlight]. The burden of production to generate an affirmative defense is on the defense. This is constitutional because the defense is not negating an essential element of the crime charged. The standard, meaning the quantum of evidence needed, varies with the particular affirmative defense. Generally it is either by a preponderance, or by clear and convincing. Once the defense has met this burden of producing an affirmative defense,[COLOR="#0000ff"][U] [COLOR="#000000"]the Government has the additional [B]burden[/B][/COLOR][/U][/COLOR] of persuading the jury not just as to each element of the crime BRD, but also to persuade the jury to reject the affirmative defense BRD as well. [INDENT]I[COLOR="#000000"][B]. Burden of Proof[/B][/COLOR] Presenting an affirmative defense offers no relief to the government in what they must prove. Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977). Rather, if the defense generates an affirmative defense, [COLOR="#ff0000"][U][highlight][COLOR="#000000"]the government must then disprove the defense generally beyond a reasonable doubt[/COLOR][/highlight][/U][/COLOR]. Mullaney, 421 U.S. at 704; U.S. v. Jackson, 569 F.2d 1003, 1008 n.12 (7th Cir. 1978)(emphasis added).[/INDENT][SIZE=1] [...] [B]Google Doc[/B] [url]https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:06-_HilumfEJ:www.fd.org/pdf_lib/beneman_affirmative_defenses_materials.pdf+affirmative+defense&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjQQ9DDIG6I9rtWnkdrvG4XMpf-h2KGVxjIf2cgCnXgnZ6rKrFrnVZwDO3Pw-YkvR4VQt6w8d4k7Jd6u3XiNVni3HwMVJaz2xJgZswMP-HkNfqJhwe5jZwla03YrbDJEf3LwZ9D&sig=AHIEtbQjGQcnos5_jKrclWonXfetxH8Zuw[/url] [B]Straight Pdf[/B] [url=http://avenue-s.us/resources/beneman_affirmative_defenses_materials.pdf]UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES[/url][/SIZE]
As for proving. For purposes of a trial, the jury is the one who usually determines what is proof.
Everything else is evidence, not proof.
Please keep in mind that Zimmerman's account is evidence.
That which is not corroborated, and can not be refuted, stands as all we have to go on.
#1 was provided long ago by the City's Mangers release.
And it was testified to during trial. It was only a suggestion, a suggestion that he did not have to follow.
#2 Is a mixture of what we know he said on the phone, and what he says happened.
Your link shows you to be wrong.
That is your misunderstanding.
No, you're very original premise in the OP is that the state has to disprove Z's statements. That's a fallacy. As soon as Z claimed self defense, the burden of proof relating to self defense is 100% upon the defense, not required for the state to disprove it's possibility, but the defenses job to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. I seriously doubt they will be able to do 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?