• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Murder2 really boils down to this... Let's Analise where it stands at this point.

Besides your link showing you are wrong, you are blatantly telling an untruth as I previously proved the information for you.


So you obviously didn't pay attention the first time around.
Figures.


Anyone who starts with, "First of all. He has not been caught lying." hasn't been paying attention, imo. Add to that the fact that originally he intended on using SYG, and truly his intent to be a machoman comes right on through, and doesn't indicate any evidence of fear, but instead bravado. Now if his ORIGINAL claim was self-defense, perhaps things would be different today.
 
Please elaborate as to how I've got it wrong and please quote the article.

Here is another link showing the burden of proof relating to the claim of self-defense is upon the defendant not the prosecution.

Criminal Trials - Who Has the Burden of Proof? - Lawyers.com

Florida isn't New York, which is the state of your proof. Many of us understand that in New York every person has a strict duty to allow yourself to be robbed, raped and/or murdered. Zimmerman is not on trial in New York.

If it was in New York, yes Zimmerman would have been required to allow Martin to beat him to death. In the past, I posted a NY case in which a person could not even use a weapon in self defense against someone who had stabbed him.
 
Last edited:
Wrong. Yes, I understand many Zimmerman haters often declare a person is guilty unless he/she can prove innocence beyond doubt. Other countries have that system of presumed guilt. The USA does not.
He is not innocent of shooting someone, that's where the innocent until proven guilty part comes in. He's claiming that though his guilty of shooting someone, the circumstances should absolve him, and that burden is on him. And I'm sure it is in most countries. Otherwise people would be killing each other and claiming self-defense all the time regardless of whether it is true. No country could survive taking someone's word for self-defense.
 
Please elaborate as to how I've got it wrong and please quote the article.

Here is another link showing the burden of proof relating to the claim of self-defense is upon the defendant not the prosecution.

Criminal Trials - Who Has the Burden of Proof? - Lawyers.com
Are you not paying attention?
I already have.
His burden is to make a ‘showing’.
A ‘showing’ to generate the jury instruction.
That ‘showing’ can be done through the prosecutions witnesses and what they present, or it can be done by what the Defense presents.
Or the combination thereof.

Why do you think there is all this talk of Zimmerman now not having to take the stand?

It is because his burden of ‘showing’, has already been met.
 
Last edited:
Summerwind, watch the Mark O'Mara press conference referenced above, originally posted by Excon. This is an ATTORNEY involved DIRECTLY in the case. I'd be willing to wager Mark O'Mara knows more about Florida law than you!

You're W R O N G!
 
Florida isn't New York, which is the state of your proof. Many of understand that in New York every person has a strict duty to allow yourself to be robbed, raped and/or murdered. Zimmerman is not on trial in New York.
Okay, then show me where Florida's is different. You're all talk and no links.
 
Anyone who starts with, "First of all. He has not been caught lying." hasn't been paying attention, imo.
THat is because you are not paying attention.


Add to that the fact that originally he intended on using SYG, and truly his intent to be a machoman comes right on through, and doesn't indicate any evidence of fear, but instead bravado. Now if his ORIGINAL claim was self-defense, perhaps things would be different today.
And again you are showing you haven't been paying attention, and instead are engaged in convoluted thinking.
His claim is, and always has been, self-defense. That has not changed.
 
Here's Mark O'Mara PROVING you're W R O N G Summerwind.
I'm so sorry but after listening to O'Mara attempt and fail miserably at getting the interim dismissal, nothing he says is credible. He's a spinner and there's no doubt about that.
 
I'm so sorry but after listening to O'Mara attempt and fail miserably at getting the interim dismissal, nothing he says is credible. He's a spinner and there's no doubt about that.
Holy ****!
Those are your convoluted thoughts.

The JOA was not going top be granted regardless.
 
I'm so sorry but after listening to O'Mara attempt and fail miserably at getting the interim dismissal, nothing he says is credible. He's a spinner and there's no doubt about that.

In nearly every single case ever, they request dismissal upon completion of the prosecution's case. This is primarily to preserve the right of appeal. So, blaming Omara for this, is ridiculous.
 
If you're going to analize something, you can leave me out of it.

But you can't help yourself and continued to post... At least you could do us all a favor, and do what you say. Geeeez

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.

Untitled Document

Though this link is from CA it is, as I've come to understand, the law of the land nationwide as in each state has similar requirements.

You obviously continue to make ignorant and uninformed statements without doing applicable research. It's not useful to post false info and expect others to clean it up and prove you wrong. You've already been taught a lesson on Fla law here... hopefully you've learned from it, accept it, deal with it, and move on.
 
I'm so sorry but after listening to O'Mara attempt and fail miserably at getting the interim dismissal, nothing he says is credible. He's a spinner and there's no doubt about that.

BTW, just something else for you to ignore completely;

This is an appeal where the jury instructions were incorrectly asserting that the burden of proof for self defense was put on the defendant. The court of appeals agrees that this was an error and the burden of proof should have been on the state.

http://www.5dca.org/opinions/opin2012/042312/5d10-2011.op.pdf

When self-defense is asserted, the defendant has the burden of producing enough evidence to establish a prima facie case demonstrating the justifiable use of force.

Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing of selfdefense, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.

The burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including the burden of proving that the defendant did
not act in self-defense, never shifts from the State to the defendant.
 
So, as I stated in the first 2 posts, anyone is welcome to challenge what I have presented based on the evidence and testimony presented by the state, or can address the other 2 points that I've yet to tackle... I would like to see what the Martin supporters think they have seen that would support a murder2 conviction.
 
BTW, just something else for you to ignore completely;

This is an appeal where the jury instructions were incorrectly asserting that the burden of proof for self defense was put on the defendant. The court of appeals agrees that this was an error and the burden of proof should have been on the state.

http://www.5dca.org/opinions/opin2012/042312/5d10-2011.op.pdf


I wonder if what you provided will finally shut those folk up or not?


From buck's link.

When self-defense is asserted, the defendant has the burden of producing enough evidence to establish a prima facie

case demonstrating the justifiable use of force. Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424, 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011);

Fields v. State, 988 So. 2d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); see Murray v. State, 937 So. 2d 277, 282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (holding

that law does not require defendant to prove self-defense to any standard measuring assurance of truth, exigency, near certainty,

or even mere probability; defendant’s only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could have been reasonable).

Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing of self-defense, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt

that the defendant did not act in self-defense. Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188. The burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,

including the burden of proving that the defendant did not act in self-defense, never shifts from the State to the defendant.


Montijo, 61 So. 3d at 427; Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188; see Monsansky v. State, 33 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (explaining

that defendant has burden to present sufficient evidence that he acted in self-defense in order to be entitled to jury instruction

on issue, but presentation of such evidence does not change elements of offense at issue; rather, it merely requires state to

present evidence that establishes beyond reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in self-defense); Murray, 937 So. 2d at 279

(explaining that defendant in trial for aggravated battery was not required to prove self-defense claim beyond reasonable doubt

or by preponderance of evidence; rather, self-defense evidence needed merely leave jury with reasonable doubt about whether

he was justified in using deadly force).
 
I wonder if what you provided will finally shut those folk up or not?

No, of course it won't. After all, Omara tried to have the charges dismissed as every other defense lawyer previous has done. This just proves he is a liar. :roll:
 
No, of course it won't. After all, Omara tried to have the charges dismissed as every other defense lawyer previous has done. This just proves he is a liar. :roll:
No, it proves that like you, he's a spinner. Tell just enough of the truth, leave pertinent parts out, and hype the parts you can into more than what they were (i.e. hyping "spinner" into "liar") mostly because it seems the plain straight forward truth doesn't serve you so you spin it into something it isn't and/or wasn't.
 
No, it proves that like you, he's a spinner. Tell just enough of the truth, leave pertinent parts out, and hype the parts you can into more than what they were (i.e. hyping "spinner" into "liar") mostly because it seems the plain straight forward truth doesn't serve you so you spin it into something it isn't and/or wasn't.

There is zero chance that you are serious with this reply. If you actually are... I am quite sorry.
 
No, it proves that like you, he's a spinner. Tell just enough of the truth, leave pertinent parts out, and hype the parts you can into more than what they were (i.e. hyping "spinner" into "liar") mostly because it seems the plain straight forward truth doesn't serve you so you spin it into something it isn't and/or wasn't.

So what part of the TRUTH did he leave out? Oh I know you mean that TM was only in Sanford because he was expelled from school in Miami due to FIGHTING? You mean he left out the fact TM had THC levels IN HIS BLOOD at the time of the encounter that would IMPAIR someone? Oh no wait you mean the part of the truth of all the text messages TM was sending?

You've been PROVEN to be WRONG about the law. Now you're going to twist and turn about the "truth"?

Remind me again............who's <ahem> SPINNING????
 
No, it proves that like you, he's a spinner. Tell just enough of the truth, leave pertinent parts out, and hype the parts you can into more than what they were (i.e. hyping "spinner" into "liar") mostly because it seems the plain straight forward truth doesn't serve you so you spin it into something it isn't and/or wasn't.
Convoluted.
 
So what part of the TRUTH did he leave out? Oh I know you mean that TM was only in Sanford because he was expelled from school in Miami due to FIGHTING? You mean he left out the fact TM had THC levels IN HIS BLOOD at the time of the encounter that would IMPAIR someone? Oh no wait you mean the part of the truth of all the text messages TM was sending?

You've been PROVEN to be WRONG about the law. Now you're going to twist and turn about the "truth"?

Remind me again............who's <ahem> SPINNING????

My god.. he was suspended for two weeks for writing wtf on a locker in magic marker.

Did you read all his text messages?
 
My god.. he was suspended for two weeks for writing wtf on a locker in magic marker.

Did you read all his text messages?

And you believe a codeine abuser, and pot head, who flashes his fake gold grill, and drops racial slurs as easily as any casual conversation? You believe a gansta wanna be who didn't live in the complex of homes he was visiting, and was at the 7-11 not to buy skittles for his younger brother, but instead was buying the ingredents to make 'purple lean' so he could get further messed up that night, and indeed disappeared for 30 minutes after the 7-11 on his way back to dad's shack up pad, then when seen as suspicious, instead of getting home to safety, loses, flanks, and attacks someone whom he doesn't know, and assaults them.

My God, is right sharon.
 
And you believe a codeine abuser, and pot head, who flashes his fake gold grill, and drops racial slurs as easily as any casual conversation? You believe a gansta wanna be who didn't live in the complex of homes he was visiting, and was at the 7-11 not to buy skittles for his younger brother, but instead was buying the ingredents to make 'purple lean' so he could get further messed up that night, and indeed disappeared for 30 minutes after the 7-11 on his way back to dad's shack up pad, then when seen as suspicious, instead of getting home to safety, loses, flanks, and attacks someone whom he doesn't know, and assaults them.

My God, is right sharon.

I think you are probably crazy.
 
Back
Top Bottom