Which way are you leaning pertainingt to the verdict of this trial?[W:36]

[ric27]

Re: Which way are you leaning pertainingt to the verdict of this trial?

In order to make a self-defense claim, the DEFENSE must prove that the defendant was carrying out his "duty to retreat:"

Duty to retreat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since Zimmerman had not avoided conflict due to the fact that he was following the source of conflict, he cannot make a good claim to self-defense.

Wrong, convoluted and wacky (that's a new one)

 

[Compatibilist]

If GZ had stayed in his truck and waited for the police none of this would have happened.

True and if TM wouldn't have attacked GZ... none of this would have happened.

 

[Jerry]

Re: Which way are you leaning pertainingt to the verdict of this trial?

If you take a person's life you should at least have to defend that action in court.

It doesn't always need to go to court. You should have to defend that decision to investigators, but it should only go to court if there's evidence that you've don something wrong. Many self-defense cases are clear-cut.

 

[Jerry]

Re: Which way are you leaning pertainingt to the verdict of this trial?

You are really not getting it. he has admitted to killing treyvon.

That's right, "kill", not "murder". Those words mean different things.

He is guilty of murder....

When was that verdict reached? Link please.

....and now has to prove it was justified.

If Z has already been found guilty, as you claim, then the trial is over and there's nothing left to try and prove.

There is no reasonable doubt he did not kill treyvon.

That would be true if Z was using the self-defense claim.


But he's not.

The burden of proof falls upon him to prove it was justified because he has already admitted to the crime.

That would be true if Z was using the self-defense claim, because self-defense is an affirmative defense. But Z is not using the self-defense claim. The State is charging him with Murder-2, so the burden is on the state to prove murder-2.

He is not innocent of killing treyvon....

Just because you do something doesn't mean you're guilty of anything, because guilty means you did something wrong. You can kill someone and not have don anything wrong.

 

[bubbabgone]

Re: Which way are you leaning pertainingt to the verdict of this trial?

Interesting question.
From what has happened in Court so far, an indictment on any charge should never have been brought.
I was thinking that maybe the Prosecutor was really going for manslaughter because his witness' testimonies were so very unhelpful for 2nd degree murder.
But now I'm thinking he may have brought the case simply to parade these witnesses across the screen in order to demonstrate that there was no crime at all and thereby perhaps eliminate an excuse for a race riot.
Bottom line ... so far there's no there there.

 

[sharon]

Re: Which way are you leaning pertainingt to the verdict of this trial?

Interesting question.
From what has happened in Court so far, an indictment on any charge should never have been brought.
I was thinking that maybe the Prosecutor was really going for manslaughter because his witness' testimonies were so very unhelpful for 2nd degree murder.
But now I'm thinking he may have brought the case simply to parade these witnesses across the screen in order to demonstrate that there was no crime at all and thereby perhaps eliminate an excuse for a race riot.
Bottom line ... so far there's no there there.

The prosecution would be sanctioned for NOT presenting these witnesses.

 

[ABC10]

Re: Which way are you leaning pertainingt to the verdict of this trial?

The prosecution would be sanctioned for NOT presenting these witnesses.

And who pray tell would sanction Bernie, Guy or the other one? I do think O'Mara West would tar. feather and run them out of town on a rail.

 

[bubbabgone]

Re: Which way are you leaning pertainingt to the verdict of this trial?

The prosecution would be sanctioned for NOT presenting these witnesses.

... but that's not the point I was clumsily trying to make.
Since he had to know what he had on his hands, I was wondering if the Prosecutor could have brought the case to, in effect, both immunize himself against criticism if he hadn't, and/or get the real facts out so reasonable people of all races would realize this was just a tragic event and not a crime.
Unreasonable people of all races will do what they are wont to do regardless.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

Re: Which way are you leaning pertainingt to the verdict of this trial?

You are really not getting it. he has admitted to killing treyvon. He is guilty of murder and now has to prove it was justified. There is no reasonable doubt he did not kill treyvon. The burden of proof falls upon him to prove it was justified because he has already admitted to the crime. He is not innocent of killing treyvon, and this trial has nothing to do with that. The only debate was whether or not it was a justified killing.

Apparently you don't understand the definition of the word "murder." Z has admitted to killing T but not murdering him. Oy vey!

Murder | Define Murder at Dictionary.com

1.
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)

Murder - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

: to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice

Lawful Self-Defense - Weapons - Division of Licensing, FDACS

Chapter 776 was amended by the Legislature in 2005. The changes that took effect on October 1, 2005, extended the provisions of what is known as the “Castle Doctrine,” declaring that a person has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force if that force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily harm or the commission of a forcible felony.

 

[Jerry]

Re: Which way are you leaning pertainingt to the verdict of this trial?

In order to make a self-defense claim, the DEFENSE must prove that the defendant was carrying out his "duty to retreat:"

Duty to retreat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since Zimmerman had not avoided conflict due to the fact that he was following the source of conflict, he cannot make a good claim to self-defense.

It's my understanding that Z is not using the self defense claim.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Which way are you leaning pertainingt to the verdict of this trial?

In order to make a self-defense claim, the DEFENSE must prove that the defendant was carrying out his "duty to retreat:"

Duty to retreat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since Zimmerman had not avoided conflict due to the fact that he was following the source of conflict, he cannot make a good claim to self-defense.

Notice that sometimes and often are used in this duty to retreat link which you have provided. Wiki has many general statements but this case is being tried under Florida's specific laws which lack that duty to retreat, thus the law is referred to as Stand Your Ground.

From your link:

In the criminal law, the duty to retreat is a specific component which sometimes appears in the defense of self-defense, and which must be addressed if the defendant is to prove that his or her conduct was justified. In those jurisdictions where the requirement exists, the burden of proof is on the defense to show that the defendant was acting reasonably. This is [/b]often[/b] taken to mean that the defendant had first avoided conflict and secondly, had taken reasonable steps to retreat and so demonstrated an intention not to fight before eventually using force.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

Re: Which way are you leaning pertainingt to the verdict of this trial?

I watched much of the trial that's been shown live on TV the past few days and saw the state's two star witnesses. I couldn't imagine a jury convicting Zimmerman on their first witness's testimony, the young lady who was on the phone with T when the altercation was about to begin. When I saw their second witness I though at first he was a defense witness because his testimony seemed to favor Zimmerman.

I've heard some on TV news criticize the prosecution for presenting a poor argument to prove their case but from what I've seen so far they just don't seem to have a very strong case to begin with. It seems like they are trying to make a case without compelling evidence.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

Re: Which way are you leaning pertainingt to the verdict of this trial?

In order to make a self-defense claim, the DEFENSE must prove that the defendant was carrying out his "duty to retreat:"

Duty to retreat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since Zimmerman had not avoided conflict due to the fact that he was following the source of conflict, he cannot make a good claim to self-defense.

You can't retreat if you have been attacked and are on your back. I think this is the claim of the defense. Florida has a Castle Doctrine law, aka "Stand your Ground," although Zimmerman is apparently claiming self-defense.

Chapter 776 was amended by the Legislature in 2005. The changes that took effect on October 1, 2005, extended the provisions of what is known as the “Castle Doctrine,” declaring that a person has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force if that force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily harm or the commission of a forcible felony.

Lawful Self-Defense - Weapons - Division of Licensing, FDACS

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Re: Which way are you leaning pertainingt to the verdict of this trial?

There is no evidence to convict Zim and the only reason this ever came to trial is the politics of it. What a joke.

 

[PirateMk1]

Re: Which way are you leaning pertainingt to the verdict of this trial?

I voted Guilty of a Lesser Charge. I'm assuming that the jury can do that. That's not always possible, I don't think. But since I believe most everyone sees this as a terrible tragedy, I think the jury will want to find him guilty of SOMETHING. Murder 2? If that happens, I'll say it was a terrible miscarriage of justice. I don't know what lesser charge they might find him guilty of, but if they can? I think they might.

Why find him guilty of anything? What did he do that was unlawful?

 

[ecofarm]

Re: Which way are you leaning pertainingt to the verdict of this trial?

In order to make a self-defense claim, the DEFENSE must prove that the defendant was carrying out his "duty to retreat:"

Duty to retreat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since Zimmerman had not avoided conflict due to the fact that he was following the source of conflict, he cannot make a good claim to self-defense.

Google 'Florida SYG' (SYG = anti duty to retreat), the statutes are just a few paragraphs and it covers the legal use of lethal force outside ones residence. Pay special attention to the part about forcible felonies. Florida's Castle Doctrine also has no duty to retreat (of course).

 

[MadLib]

Re: Which way are you leaning pertainingt to the verdict of this trial?

Google 'Florida SYG' (SYG = anti duty to retreat), the statutes are just a few paragraphs and it covers the legal use of lethal force outside ones residence. Pay special attention to the part about forcible felonies. Florida's Castle Doctrine also has no duty to retreat (of course).

Zimmerman isn't going for SYG claim IIRC. I haven't been watching the feed, so it might have changed

 

[MadLib]

Re: Which way are you leaning pertainingt to the verdict of this trial?

You can't retreat if you have been attacked and are on your back. I think this is the claim of the defense. Florida has a Castle Doctrine law, aka "Stand your Ground," although Zimmerman is apparently claiming self-defense.

I agree. But duty to retreat also encompasses avoiding conflict, not just attempting to leave when it occurs.

 

[ecofarm]

Re: Which way are you leaning pertainingt to the verdict of this trial?

Zimmerman isn't going for SYG claim IIRC. I haven't been watching the feed, so it might have changed

SYG covers the legality of the use of lethal force, whether someone wants to "claim" it or not. The bottom line is, there is no other lethal force self-defense law in Florida beside Castle Doctrine (for within ones home). The defense chose not to attempt an SYG hearing or some such and they are utilizing the more mundane aspects of self defense law therein (fear of harm as opposed to forcible felony) probably for simplicity's sake.


My concern: SYG protocols were used to determine that Z would not be charged and that was overturned. If Z were to be convicted of 2nd degree murder (or even manslaughter), it would call into question the legitimacy of that protocol.

 

[ecofarm]

Re: Which way are you leaning pertainingt to the verdict of this trial?

I agree. But duty to retreat also encompasses avoiding conflict, not just attempting to leave when it occurs.

There is no duty to retreat in Florida self defense law, anywhere. It does not exist here.

 

[shrubnose]

Re: Which way are you leaning pertainingt to the verdict of this trial?

I voted Guilty of a Lesser Charge. I'm assuming that the jury can do that. That's not always possible, I don't think. But since I believe most everyone sees this as a terrible tragedy, I think the jury will want to find him guilty of SOMETHING. Murder 2? If that happens, I'll say it was a terrible miscarriage of justice. I don't know what lesser charge they might find him guilty of, but if they can? I think they might.

I'm inclined to believe that anything more than Manslaughter would be wrong.

 

[sharon]

Re: Which way are you leaning pertainingt to the verdict of this trial?

I'm inclined to believe that anything more than Manslaughter would be wrong.

Problem is that Aggravated Manslaughter is 25 years and includes killing a minor with a gun.

 

[Josie]

Re: Which way are you leaning pertainingt to the verdict of this trial?

Anyone changed their minds?

 

[DiAnna]

Re: Which way are you leaning pertainingt to the verdict of this trial?

Personally, I'd like to see him convicted of manslaughter or a lesser crime. If he did not arm himself, get out of his car and follow TM, then an unarmed 17 yr old would not have been shot to death... period.

That said, I think a primarily white jury of women will find enough reasonable doubt to acquit him based upon Florida law. There is, however, something wrong with a law that allows a person to actively stalk someone, end up killing him, and get away with it.

 

[Josie]

Re: Which way are you leaning pertainingt to the verdict of this trial?

That said, I think a primarily white jury of women will find enough reasonable doubt to acquit him based upon Florida law. There is, however, something wrong with a law that allows a person to actively stalk someone, end up killing him, and get away with it.

You don't think they'll be objective because of their skin color?