Trayvon Martin’s social media posts may come up at trial [W: 980]

[Thunder]

...Congrats, dude or dudette, whoever you are...

I would appreciate it very much if you stopped this.

 

[Thunder]

No hard evidence he didn't, either....

you want the jury to decide, based on the lack of evidence that it didn't happen?

 

[j-mac]

there is no hard evidence that Martin started the fight.

the jury will have to decide what happened.

and they will decide if Zimmerman's suspicions, were justified.

Not necessarily. It is up to the prosecution to 'prove beyond a reasonable doubt' that Z is guilty of 2nd degree murder, or any of the lesser charges if any applied here. It is also up to the Judges instructions post closing arguments as to what the Jury can consider.

But I think your last sentence shows why there may be a disconnect between defenders of M or Z. And that is that defenders of M seem to think that Z must prove his innocence. This is incorrect.


j-mac

 

[j-mac]

you want the jury to decide, based on the lack of evidence that it didn't happen?

Beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the hurdle for the Prosecution.


j-mac

 

[Thunder]

Not necessarily. It is up to the prosecution to 'prove beyond a reasonable doubt' that Z is guilty of 2nd degree murder, or any of the lesser charges if any applied here. It is also up to the Judges instructions post closing arguments as to what the Jury can consider....

if the jury believes that Zimmerman's suspicions of Martin were unwarranted, and that Zimmerman's state of mind was aggressive & intimidating, they may indeed decide that Zimmerman's actions caused the whole event, and thereby convict him of at least Manslaughter.

 

[sharon]

Not necessarily. It is up to the prosecution to 'prove beyond a reasonable doubt' that Z is guilty of 2nd degree murder, or any of the lesser charges if any applied here. It is also up to the Judges instructions post closing arguments as to what the Jury can consider.

But I think your last sentence shows why there may be a disconnect between defenders of M or Z. And that is that defenders of M seem to think that Z must prove his innocence. This is incorrect.


j-mac

I think Z has to prove that he was justified which requires an affirmative defense..

As in .. I shot him, but..

Self defense against an unarmed person is hard to prove if you initiated the event and they weren't doing anything unlawful.

 

[Thunder]

Beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the hurdle for the Prosecution.


j-mac

yes, not "there is no evidence that it didn't happen, therefore you should assume it happened"

 

[dolphinocean]

Excellent post, dolphinocean ..

Save it.. You'll have to post it again.

This guy went overboard with his overkill on his lists of "fear factors". Head slam and Trayvon trying to cover his nose and mouth with his two hands and he just laid there doing nothing to counter with his two free hands? As far as we know, he never told us what he did physically to counter Trayvon's action. The only thing he did was draw the gun and fired one shot that killed Trayvon.

I got another post that is possibily too long to post here that will pull apart Zimmerman's story in other areas. Will see.

 

[j-mac]

if the jury believes that Zimmerman's suspicions of Martin were unwarranted, and that Zimmerman's state of mind was aggressive & intimidating, they may indeed decide that Zimmerman's actions caused the whole event, and thereby convict him of at least Manslaughter.

No way you can know that for a certainty, unless you already know the Judges instructions before the trial even commences....Now that'd be a good trick.

j-mac

 

[sharon]

This guy went overboard with his overkill on his lists of "fear factors". Head slam and Trayvon trying to cover his nose and mouth with his two hands and he just laid there doing nothing to counter with his two free hands? As far as we know, he never told us what he did physically to counter Trayvon's action. The only thing he did was draw the gun and fired one shot that killed Trayvon.

I got another post that is possibily too long to post here that will pull apart Zimmerman's story in other areas. Will see.

Is it allowed to put it in a separate thread?

Point is that in the moment of confrontation, Zimmerman could have identified himself as neighborhood watch....

 

[j-mac]

I think Z has to prove that he was justified which requires an affirmative defense..

As in .. I shot him, but..

Self defense against an unarmed person is hard to prove if you initiated the event and they weren't doing anything unlawful.

The first bolded part is where I think you have it backwards...We don't prove our innocence in this country, the state must prove guilt.

The second bolded part, will be in whom actually initiated physical contact, IMHO. That so far as we know according to Z's story to police was M.


j-mac

 

[j-mac]

Is it allowed to put it in a separate thread?

Point is that in the moment of confrontation, Zimmerman could have identified himself as neighborhood watch....

And Martin could have scurried his arse home, instead of ditching Z, and circling back around to get the drop on him.


j-mac

 

[j-mac]

This guy went overboard with his overkill on his lists of "fear factors". Head slam and Trayvon trying to cover his nose and mouth with his two hands and he just laid there doing nothing to counter with his two free hands? As far as we know, he never told us what he did physically to counter Trayvon's action. The only thing he did was draw the gun and fired one shot that killed Trayvon

Are you in law enforcement? Or a lawyer? Just wondering.


j-mac

 

[Thunder]

And Martin could have scurried his arse home, instead of ditching Z, and circling back around to get the drop on him.

j-mac

which of course may not have happened.

 

[sharon]

The first bolded part is where I think you have it backwards...We don't prove our innocence in this country, the state must prove guilt.

The second bolded part, will be in whom actually initiated physical contact, IMHO. That so far as we know according to Z's story to police was M.


j-mac

The party who offers an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof...............

 

[Thunder]

The first bolded part is where I think you have it backwards...We don't prove our innocence in this country, the state must prove guilt.

The second bolded part, will be in whom actually initiated physical contact, IMHO. That so far as we know according to Z's story to police was M.


j-mac

Zimmerman shot & killed Martin. This is a fact.

He will claim it was in self-defense. He will have to defend this claim.

 

[sharon]

And Martin could have scurried his arse home, instead of ditching Z, and circling back around to get the drop on him.


j-mac

You are making an unarmed 17 year old accountable for all the poor decisions tht GZ made.

 

[Thunder]

You are making an unarmed 17 year old accountable for all the poor decisions tht GZ made.

and he is assuming that Zimmerman's claims are fact.

 

[sharon]

and he is assuming that Zimmerman's claims are fact.

I know I am repeating myself..

The party who offers an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof.

 

[ric27]

Is it allowed to put it in a separate thread?

Point is that in the moment of confrontation, Zimmerman could have identified himself as neighborhood watch....

Why? Now, there is no national or state id requirement for simply breathing. I have a right to not be bothered. I have the right to move about freely. I have a right to free association (or the converse). All of these rights are mine until I have been proven to have violated the law.

What I cannot do... is commit aggravated assault on someone just because, I want to.....thats where, I violate, the law.

 

[dontworrybehappy]

I know I am repeating myself..

The party who offers an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof.

Not always true. In some jurisdictions, the defense must only make the assertion of self defense and the prosecution must prove it wrong. It is also a much lower burden of proof than the prosecution has. Remember, in this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. You will NEVER have to prove your innocence to the same degree that the prosecutor must prove your guilt.

The standard of proof is typically lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. It can either be proved by clear and convincing evidence or by a preponderance of the evidence. In some cases or jurisdictions, however, the defense must only be asserted, and the prosecution has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense is not applicable.

Affirmative defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ric27]

I think Z has to prove that he was justified which requires an affirmative defense..

As in .. I shot him, but..

Self defense against an unarmed person is hard to prove if you initiated the event and they weren't doing anything unlawful.

You mean...Guilty until proven innocent?.

 

[sharon]

Why? Now, there is no national or state id requirement for simply breathing. I have a right to not be bothered. I have the right to move about freely. I have a right to free association (or the converse). All of these rights are mine until I have been proven to have violated the law.

What I cannot do... is commit aggravated assault on someone just because, I want to.....thats where, I violate, the law.

Trayvon Martin also had the right to move about freely.. He was not involved in any illegal activity.

 

[sharon]

You mean...Guilty until proven innocent?.

They KNOW Zimmerman shot Trayvon..

Zimmerman claims "self defense".

Self defense requires and AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE... which means the burden of proof shifts to Zimmerman.

 

[ric27]

Trayvon Martin also had the right to move about freely.. He was not involved in any illegal activity.

Until, he went ape**** on Z`