George Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

This trial was so interesting to me because it was clear shortly after this thing got started three weeks ago that this trial had the roles flipped around. Normally you have the prosecution telling the jury what happened while the defense tries to poke enough holes to add up to reasonable doubt. With this trial we had the exact opposite in the defense setting the narrative while the prosecution tried to produce the doubt.

The prosecution never, throughout the entire trial, set their own narrative. They never told you what happened instead they tried to give the jury alternate scenarios to what the defense was saying happened and tried to appeal to the juries emotions. Those are both things you typically find the defense engaging in.

The defense was starting from such an advantageous position in this trial I would have been shocked if the jury came back with anything but a straight not guilty. This advantage only grew when you factor in other such things like George Zimmerman getting his story in through various interviews he had given allowing him the luxury of not needing to take the stand and not be cross examined.

Then you had the witnesses. The state's witnesses fell into one of two categories more often than not. First you had those that were either comically incompetent like Rachel Jeantel and her neck fat (seriously what was up with that?) and Dr Bao who claimed to not be able to remember anything at all about the autopsy of Trayvon Martin. Meanwhile, those that appeared competent enough were giving testimony that was of far more benefit to the defense than the prosecution.

Looking back at how the whole thing went down I think it should be clear to anyone who cares to look why this wasn't initially prosecuted. The state simply couldn't put on a case that had any hope of being successful. The officers and lawyers that first handled the case knew this and I'd wager that deep down the lawyers that tried the case against Mr Zimmerman knew it too.

Diablo1099:

Gorfias:
I've written it before: How about the woman in her basement with a gun. Her unarmed husband lies shot dead on the stairs. She tells police he was yelling he'd had enough and was marching downstairs to kill her. Disregard her position, and you put women in deadly danger of domestic abuse. Reflexively buy her side and men are open season in their own homes.

It is not as open and shut a matter as you describe.

If there had been past events of Domestic Abuse, then in that case it would.

But looking into those past events is not what you do when there's an open and shut case. In this case, we look into some past (as much as we can with a minor) and present factors. What was Trayvon talking about? He was calling Zimmerman a "cracker" and, as you concede below, was probably angry. From what we know, Zimmeran really was following instructions to return to his car. The, arguably, pro prosecution judge found Zimmerman's past does not show a violent man that is a threat to the community.

It is likely that Zimmerman did not have his gun out. Martin saw a cracker that made him (justifiably) angry, and, as he was younger and had inches of reach on Zimmerman, may have physically confronted him. Sad but that is often what angry youths do.

If you think there is a reasonable chance that happened, you have to find Zimmerman not guilty. I think there was more than a reasonable chance that happened. I think it probably happened that way. Hardly, "getting away with murder".

Gorfias:

Diablo1099:

Gorfias:
I've written it before: How about the woman in her basement with a gun. Her unarmed husband lies shot dead on the stairs. She tells police he was yelling he'd had enough and was marching downstairs to kill her. Disregard her position, and you put women in deadly danger of domestic abuse. Reflexively buy her side and men are open season in their own homes.

It is not as open and shut a matter as you describe.

If there had been past events of Domestic Abuse, then in that case it would.

But looking into those past events is not what you do when there's an open and shut case. In this case, we look into some past (as much as we can with a minor) and present factors. What was Trayvon talking about? He was calling Zimmerman a "cracker" and, as you concede below, was probably angry. From what we know, Zimmeran really was following instructions to return to his car. The, arguably, pro prosecution judge found Zimmerman's past does not show a violent man that is a threat to the community.

It is likely that Zimmerman did not have his gun out. Martin saw a cracker that made him (justifiably) angry, and, as he was younger and had inches of reach on Zimmerman, may have physically confronted him. Sad but that is often what angry youths do.

If you think there is a reasonable chance that happened, you have to find Zimmerman not guilty. I think there was more than a reasonable chance that happened. I think it probably happened that way. Hardly, "getting away with murder".

The operator didn't tell him to go back to his car.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/20/911-calls-paint-picture-of-chaos-after-florida-teen-is-shot/

Told him that he didn't need to follow him. Told him that they had officers coming. George Zimmerman had every opportunity to not engage with this individual. He willfully did so.
George Zimmerman picked this fight. In this fight that he picked with this kid, he killed the kid.

George Zimmerman took the law into his own hands. And because of that a kid whose only crime was wearing a hoddie and holding skittles, is dead.

thebakedpotato:
George Zimmerman had every opportunity to not engage with this individual. He willfully did so. George Zimmerman picked this fight. In this fight that he picked with this kid, he killed the kid.

Martin's house was only a few hundred feet away. Over the course of the minutes-long phone call, he could have walked home and back again four times. That he stayed near Zimmerman casts doubt upon your assertion that Zimmerman picked the fight. Are you sure you can prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman threw the first punch? Or are you just letting your emotions dictate your assessment?

George Zimmerman took the law into his own hands. And because of that a kid whose only crime was wearing a hoddie and holding skittles, is dead.

"Only crime" here, I presume, does not include possibly assaulting someone?

I say justice was served. The Criminal Justice system doesn't run on assumptions. If Zimmerman did it, they sure as hell didn't prove it to me.

J Tyran:

You note at 2:05 he tells the operator that Mr Martin was running away and then make some notes at 2:21 where the operator asks him to clarify if he is following him, when Zimmertool admitted he was he was told not to. Several times after this the operator told him to go and wait for the police. The call ended after 4 mins, sometime after that the fight started.

After the first time he was told to stop pursuing you can clearly hear that Zimmerman stopped.

Mr Martin was concerned enough to make a phone call and stated his concern during that call, he was then scared enough that he felt he needed to run. Why would he then go and find Zimmerturd when he was obviously scared of him? If he wanted to punch him up he had oppertunity to do so but instead he ran away.

Because he was an intoxinated teen who has a record of violence.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/new_evidence_shows_trayvons_life_unraveling.html#ixzz2YZ4CiwCt

This is clear evidence that Mr Martin intended to try and escape the situation

Is it?

The only available evidence clearly shows the Zimmertool intended to continue pursuit and temporally lost sight of him, his frustration is pretty clear when he starts bleating "they always get away". He then deliberately and purposefully ended that line of evidence, no real evidence as to why he did that so lets speculate. He either wanted to continue pursuing and start a confrontation even though he was advised not to and did not want to the dispatcher hear him do this, or more likley he was feeling disillusioned with the operator because he felt he was not taking him seriously and frustrated with Mr Martin and his temporay escape and thought if he could re-aquire him the dispatcher might do something so he continued pursuit.

Now you just pull shit out of your ass.

Please do not say "gimme proof", either speculate yourself or you actually provide some proof that my claims are wrong. If you can I will check it out. I will not ignore evidence if I see it, I am not stupid nor so determined to just see someone punished for the sake of it.

So two men, one with clear evidential intent to escape and the other with clear evidential intent to not allow Mr Martin the opportunity to escape. He just happens to put the phone down after being repeatedly advised to go to a location and wait for the officers, he never went to that location which further shows his intent.

One man with intent to escape, one man with intent not to let him escape. I think its fairly obvious how the two came to be in the same place again.

Please provide clear evidence that Martin had the intent to escape. What if, after evaluation of physical capabilities (he was trained in martial arts) he, being clearly in a bad mood, confronted Zimmerman after he started going back to his vehicle?

If we look at both persons, gather information about them you have Zimmerman, someone who openly criticised the Police who tried to cover up the beating of a homeless black, who tutors black children for free and who cares enough for his neighborhood that, after an epidemia of burgalries he participated in the watch and on the other side we have a black teen with known tends to agression and confrontation, drug use and somewhat sadistic behaviour. I quote him after he beat up someone twice:

MARTIN: Nay im not done with fool..... he gone hav 2 see me again

MARTIN: Naw but he aint breed nuff 4 me, only his nose

Zimmerman does not look like someone who would go vigilante and go out of his way to confront someone instead of letting the authorities do that. Information about Martin on the other hand show that it is not that far fetched that he would ambush his pursuer because 'he followed him'.

You know, I won't adress the rest. The fact that you insist on insulting him shows that you have your agenda and no amount of evidence provided can show you that it is not such a clear cut case. I'm sure as hell you won't touch any link I provided here.

thebakedpotato:

The operator didn't tell him to go back to his car.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/20/911-calls-paint-picture-of-chaos-after-florida-teen-is-shot/

Told him that he didn't need to follow him. Told him that they had officers coming. George Zimmerman had every opportunity to not engage with this individual. He willfully did so.
George Zimmerman picked this fight. In this fight that he picked with this kid, he killed the kid.

George Zimmerman took the law into his own hands. And because of that a kid whose only crime was wearing a hoddie and holding skittles, is dead.

Provide evidence that Zimmer was the one confronting Martin and not the other way around.

And even if, provide evidence that he started the fight - because confrontation is neither illegal nor is it enough to justify an assault with possible lethal effect (slamming the head of someone against concrete can kill him pretty easy).

Godavari:

thebakedpotato:
George Zimmerman had every opportunity to not engage with this individual. He willfully did so. George Zimmerman picked this fight. In this fight that he picked with this kid, he killed the kid.

Martin's house was only a few hundred feet away. Over the course of the minutes-long phone call, he could have walked home and back again four times. That he stayed near Zimmerman casts doubt upon your assertion that Zimmerman picked the fight. Are you sure you can prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman threw the first punch? Or are you just letting your emotions dictate your assessment?

If you follow someone who's running from you, while you were instructed not to, and then shoot them, it's murder.
Zimmerman intentionally initiated this confrontation when he could have avoided it.

If the kid had chased him, it would have been a different story. Zimmerman went hunting for him. Zimmerman then killed him. He didn't have to confront him. He didn't have to follow him. He didn't have to get into the fight with Martin.

He did anyway.

There's a difference between someone robbing your house, and someone who looks suspicious walking down your street that you chase. One's self defense, the other's murder.

TheKasp:

thebakedpotato:

The operator didn't tell him to go back to his car.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/20/911-calls-paint-picture-of-chaos-after-florida-teen-is-shot/

Told him that he didn't need to follow him. Told him that they had officers coming. George Zimmerman had every opportunity to not engage with this individual. He willfully did so.
George Zimmerman picked this fight. In this fight that he picked with this kid, he killed the kid.

George Zimmerman took the law into his own hands. And because of that a kid whose only crime was wearing a hoddie and holding skittles, is dead.

Provide evidence that Zimmer was the one confronting Martin and not the other way around.

And even if, provide evidence that he started the fight - because confrontation is neither illegal nor is it enough to justify an assault with possible lethal effect (slamming the head of someone against concrete can kill him pretty easy).

The 911 Transcript:

Zimmerman: "Go straight in. Oh, s***. He's running ... down towards the other entrance of neighborhood."

Dispatcher: "He's running? Which way is he running?"

Zimmerman: "Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood."

Dispatcher: "Which entrance is that, that he is running towards?

Zimmerman: "The back entrance."

[inaudible]

Dispatcher: "Are you following him?"

Zimmerman: "Yeah."

thebakedpotato:
The 911 Transcript:

Zimmerman: "Go straight in. Oh, s***. He's running ... down towards the other entrance of neighborhood."

Dispatcher: "He's running? Which way is he running?"

Zimmerman: "Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood."

Dispatcher: "Which entrance is that, that he is running towards?

Zimmerman: "The back entrance."

[inaudible]

Dispatcher: "Are you following him?"

Zimmerman: "Yeah."

Dispatcher: "Are you following him?"

Zimmerman: "Yeah."

Dispatcher: "OK. We don't need you to do that. What's your name?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DbONzvgI3nE 2.05

In the audio you can clearly hear that as soon as this is said he either stops the pursuit or slows down. At this time he lost sight and Martin was 'safe' from any confrontation that Zimmerman might have had in mind. Based on Martins known behaviour (a record of violance and pursiut of fights, he was a training martial artist as well) it could've as well been the case that after Zimmerman lost sight Martin evaluated Zimmerman and decided to confront him with the intent of assault (you have witness of the assault in progress, record of Zimmermans wounds as well as stains of grass on Martins pants that suggest that he was the sole agressor).

I provided links to background information on Martins behaviour in the post above (#182)

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NEIGHBORHOOD_WATCH_CALIFORNIA_PROTESTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-07-14-06-36-06

There were riots because of this verdict, or at least a riot.

It wasn't a repeat of the LA riots, but some windows were broken, fires set, and a police car was damaged. People, no matter what you feel about Zimmerman, this trial, self defense, or guns, it is time to let this go. The only opinions that mattered are the twelve jurors. Nothing you say or do, besides radically amending (or redoing) the constitution to allow retrials even after a verdict has been reached by Zimmerman's twelve peers, your not going to change the verdict.

Even going out to lynch Zimmerman will only put more blood on everyones hand.

If there is something to be learned from this trial, take it to heart, whatever it may be, and move on.

Violence will not bring back the dead.

Ultimately this is a serious issue. With many facets and angles. A boy is dead and his future snuffed out.
And a man's freedom was put at stake.

Life and Liberty have and always will be the cornerstones of what it means to be an American. And it serves as a great example to this that when both are at stake we clash relentlessly, showing no compromise or quarter. We will cede neither to our enemies when they present themselves. And the ideals of our nation shall remain intact for when true threats to it arise we shall answer the call.

'merica.

thebakedpotato:

George Zimmerman had every opportunity to not engage with this individual. He willfully did so.

At what point do you know he did that? What do you consider an "engagement".

I'll stick with Dershowitz's description of what a relevant engagement would be. When someone committed the first act of violence (threw a punch, physically grabbed and restrained another) and we don't really know who that was, so, you must acquit. I'll be honest, I think the first punch was probably thrown by justifiably angry Martin. A tragedy.

thebakedpotato:

it serves as a great example to this that when both are at stake we clash relentlessly, showing no compromise or quarter.

Sadly, we often do compromise. O.J. was found not criminally guilty, but found civilly guilty later. In this case, Zimmerman fought 2nd degree murder charges. Scary that the jury was given lesser charges to consider at the end of the case. There was a chance that the jury would find a compromise verdict thinking a horrible thing had happened and someone has to pay, even if Zimmerman appears innocent of the charges.

Desert Punk:

J Tyran:
[quote="madwarper" post="528.821937.19868954"]both men believed they where acting in self defense.

What twisted country do you live in that lets you assault someone in self defence just because they are following you?

What twisted country do I live in? Let me point out a few things related to this case and the legality in my country, first I will point out that the gun wouldn't have been there in the first place. Handguns are illegal but relative firearm controls isn't what I am talking about, its about how "twisted" my country is right?

-Acting like the guy from kickass and roaming the streets looking for criminals is unlawful
-Using a firearm for self defence in a fistfight would be an inappropriate use of force and would be unlawful
-Deliberately killing someone in self defence during a fistfight that only resulted in a bit of bruising would be unlawful
-Following and chasing a member of the public when you had not witnessed them committing a crime is under most circumstances unlawful

So in my "twisted" country nothing Zimmerturd did was lawful, it makes me quite proud really.

ShiningAmber:
I say justice was served. The Criminal Justice system doesn't run on assumptions. If Zimmerman did it, they sure as hell didn't prove it to me.

Why should the prosecutor have to prove anything? It just feels like Zimmerman killed Trayvon in cold blood, doesn't it? I mean, there's a significant gap in time at the critical stage where we know nothing about what happened, but I'd like to think my gut feeling is enough to surmount reasonable doubt.

Edit: Poe's law. Seriously, come on people.

J Tyran:

What twisted country do I live in? Let me point out a few things related to this case and the legality in my country, first I will point out that the gun wouldn't have been there in the first place. Handguns are illegal but relative firearm controls isn't what I am talking about, its about how "twisted" my country is right?

-Acting like the guy from kickass and roaming the streets looking for criminals is unlawful
-Using a firearm for self defence in a fistfight would be an inappropriate use of force and would be unlawful
-Deliberately killing someone in self defence during a fistfight that only resulted in a bit of bruising would be unlawful
-Following and chasing a member of the public when you had not witnessed them committing a crime is under most circumstances unlawful

So in my "twisted" country nothing Zimmerturd did was lawful, it makes me quite proud really.

Please provide sources to any of those claims because I don't want to go to a country where 'following someone' (quite subjective) gives them justification to assault me and beat me to a pulp or get me arrested.

LetalisK:
Why should the prosecutor have to prove anything? It just feels like Zimmerman killed Trayvon in cold blood, doesn't it? I mean, there's a significant gap in time at the critical stage where we know nothing about what happened, but I'd like to think my gut feeling is enough to surmount reasonable doubt.

I'm glad you weren't a juror. The prosecutor has to prove his case because in this country you are presumed innocent till proven guilty. So your speculations pulled from your er gut that override or take the place of facts gives you reasonable doubt. I'll say again I'm glad you weren't a juror on this case and hope you were never one or will be one.

LetalisK:
Why should the prosecutor have to prove anything? It just feels like Zimmerman killed Trayvon in cold blood, doesn't it? I mean, there's a significant gap in time at the critical stage where we know nothing about what happened, but I'd like to think my gut feeling is enough to surmount reasonable doubt.

Oh good.

Well, unluckily for you, juries, courts and judges don't run on "feelings".

Seriously? You would like to think how you feel, oh so deep down inside, is enough to shake reasonable doubt against the over 200 pieces of evidence that they presented?

They run on FACTS and EVIDENCE, not on someones perceived feelings.

The people in here doing a retread of this case baffle me. You read some of these posts in this thread, it's the same stuff people were saying over a year ago before there was even gonna be a trial. It's like that a jury found him not guilty has changed nothing... except that it's over and anyone who said Zimmerman was guilty is wrong, it's official at this point. But that doesn't stop some people I guess.

dumbseizure:

Well, unluckily for you, juries, courts and judges don't run on "feelings".

I'd argue that juries sometimes do. Not saying they did here, but in a jury system, it's ultimately the opinion of twelve people that pass the verdict, not necessarily strict adherence to the letter of the law; unsurprisingly so, really since I wouldn't expect jurors, laymen, to have as much knowledge about the letter of the law as experts have.

This entire trial would have caused an outrage no matter which way the verdict went though. I do not envy those jurors.

Charles_Martel:

LetalisK:
Why should the prosecutor have to prove anything? It just feels like Zimmerman killed Trayvon in cold blood, doesn't it? I mean, there's a significant gap in time at the critical stage where we know nothing about what happened, but I'd like to think my gut feeling is enough to surmount reasonable doubt.

I'm glad you weren't a juror. The prosecutor has to prove his case because in this country you are presumed innocent till proven guilty. So your speculations pulled from your er gut that override or take the place of facts gives you reasonable doubt. I'll say again I'm glad you weren't a juror on this case and hope you were never one or will be one.

dumbseizure:

LetalisK:
Why should the prosecutor have to prove anything? It just feels like Zimmerman killed Trayvon in cold blood, doesn't it? I mean, there's a significant gap in time at the critical stage where we know nothing about what happened, but I'd like to think my gut feeling is enough to surmount reasonable doubt.

Oh good.

Well, unluckily for you, juries, courts and judges don't run on "feelings".

Seriously? You would like to think how you feel, oh so deep down inside, is enough to shake reasonable doubt against the over 200 pieces of evidence that they presented?

They run on FACTS and EVIDENCE, not on someones perceived feelings.

You two do know that he was speaking in sarcasm right?

He was making a point of all these people saying it was a travesty that Zimmerman got off, and that they KNOW that Zimmerman should be guilty, because they FEEL its the right thing, even though the evidence is in favor of Zimmerman.

xDarc:
The people in here doing a retread of this case baffle me. You read some of these posts in this thread, it's the same stuff people were saying over a year ago before there was even gonna be a trial. It's like that a jury found him not guilty has changed nothing... except that it's over and anyone who said Zimmerman was guilty is wrong, it's official at this point. But that doesn't stop some people I guess.

Well it's not completely over yet. The DOJ is investigating whether or not George Zimmerman violated "No_Limit Trayvon's" civil rights and then there is the impending civil trial. The federal charges are unlikely to come about I'd think as they would have an even higher level of burden than was had in this most recent trial and that one should probably have been tossed out for lack of evidence. The civil trial though may have a shot though I wouldn't think it would be a great one.

J Tyran:

Desert Punk:

J Tyran:
[quote="madwarper" post="528.821937.19868954"]both men believed they where acting in self defense.

What twisted country do you live in that lets you assault someone in self defence just because they are following you?

What twisted country do I live in? Let me point out a few things related to this case and the legality in my country, first I will point out that the gun wouldn't have been there in the first place. Handguns are illegal but relative firearm controls isn't what I am talking about, its about how "twisted" my country is right?

-Acting like the guy from kickass and roaming the streets looking for criminals is unlawful
-Using a firearm for self defence in a fistfight would be an inappropriate use of force and would be unlawful
-Deliberately killing someone in self defence during a fistfight that only resulted in a bit of bruising would be unlawful
-Following and chasing a member of the public when you had not witnessed them committing a crime is under most circumstances unlawful

So in my "twisted" country nothing Zimmerturd did was lawful, it makes me quite proud really.

You sure showed that strawman whos boss, but you never managed to answer my question about what country you live in that lets you assault someone for following you.

Though lets address some of your strawman arguments.

-Roaming the streets like the guy from Kickass? So, your country doesn't have ANY neighborhood watch associations?
-A person repeatedly slamming your head into concrete is not a 'fistfight' that is assault with a deadly weapon.
-See above
-Following someone who looks suspicious that goes around into the backyards of houses as neighborhood watch to keep an eye on them is illegal? Yep twisted country.

Desert Punk:

J Tyran:

Desert Punk:

What twisted country do you live in that lets you assault someone in self defence just because they are following you?

What twisted country do I live in? Let me point out a few things related to this case and the legality in my country, first I will point out that the gun wouldn't have been there in the first place. Handguns are illegal but relative firearm controls isn't what I am talking about, its about how "twisted" my country is right?

-Acting like the guy from kickass and roaming the streets looking for criminals is unlawful
-Using a firearm for self defence in a fistfight would be an inappropriate use of force and would be unlawful
-Deliberately killing someone in self defence during a fistfight that only resulted in a bit of bruising would be unlawful
-Following and chasing a member of the public when you had not witnessed them committing a crime is under most circumstances unlawful

So in my "twisted" country nothing Zimmerturd did was lawful, it makes me quite proud really.

You sure showed that strawman whos boss, but you never managed to answer my question about what country you live in that lets you assault someone for following you.

Though lets address some of your strawman arguments.

-Roaming the streets like the guy from Kickass? So, your country doesn't have ANY neighborhood watch associations?
-A person repeatedly slamming your head into concrete is not a 'fistfight' that is assault with a deadly weapon.
-See above
-Following someone who looks suspicious that goes around into the backyards of houses as neighborhood watch to keep an eye on them is illegal? Yep twisted country.

Vigilantism is illegal in many countries. I haven't heard of the need to have neighborhood watches here, so I guess its never done much harm that we don't have armed civilians patrolling the streets.
Bringing a knife to a fistfight would be excessive force, guns is about three steps above excessive. . . That being said though, you aren't allowed to carry a gun outside your own home here (Unless its for hunting, and if anyone walked around in public with a rifle the police would get him right quickly), and even then you can't even own handguns and take them with you home, have to stay at a firing range/militia armory. Most likely locked in a safe a decent distant away from a different safe with the ammo.
Stalking is generally frowned upon and can lead to restraining orders, if you stalked someone up to killing them its generally not considered self-defense by any stretch of the word.

I'm glad to live where I do. We don't have cases like this.
You're glad to live where you do, because you have verdicts like this.

Lets just be glad we live where we live. :P

Super Not Cosmo:

The civil trial though may have a shot though I wouldn't think it would be a great one.

Don't you have to be only found 51% liable for something to lose in a civil trial? And isn't the punishment just a payout? I was in jr. high during the OJ trial, and I remember hearing he lost the civil trial and had to pay. Not exactly the same as being found guilty/not guilty.

Edit: Yeah, "civil trial" is just a more dignified euphemism for a lawsuit.

Shock and Awe:
No it is not. Honestly I have not been able to find the specific Florida law on the subject, but under Ohio law(the only one I could find) the defense is presumed to have acted in self defense and burden of proof is upon the Prosecution and the State to prove otherwise. If the state cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not in self defense to the jury then it must find a defendant not guilty; as we saw today.

Not going to read this whole thread to see whether anyone else has pointed this out or not but this is the very second line in the link you provided...

The burden of going forward with the evidence of an affirmative defense, and the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, for an affirmative defense, is upon the accused.

I'm not talking about arcane legalities here. This is pretty standard stuff.

edit: The presumption of self defense mentioned in your link is specific to persons who are inside their home (or vehicle) and acting upon an intruder. This is the so-called "Castle Doctrine" and is a special case that only applies in some states.

Desert Punk:

J Tyran:

Desert Punk:

What twisted country do you live in that lets you assault someone in self defence just because they are following you?

What twisted country do I live in? Let me point out a few things related to this case and the legality in my country, first I will point out that the gun wouldn't have been there in the first place. Handguns are illegal but relative firearm controls isn't what I am talking about, its about how "twisted" my country is right?

-Acting like the guy from kickass and roaming the streets looking for criminals is unlawful
-Using a firearm for self defence in a fistfight would be an inappropriate use of force and would be unlawful
-Deliberately killing someone in self defence during a fistfight that only resulted in a bit of bruising would be unlawful
-Following and chasing a member of the public when you had not witnessed them committing a crime is under most circumstances unlawful

So in my "twisted" country nothing Zimmerturd did was lawful, it makes me quite proud really.

You sure showed that strawman whos boss, but you never managed to answer my question about what country you live in that lets you assault someone for following you.

Though lets address some of your strawman arguments.

-Roaming the streets like the guy from Kickass? So, your country doesn't have ANY neighborhood watch associations?
-A person repeatedly slamming your head into concrete is not a 'fistfight' that is assault with a deadly weapon.
-See above
-Following someone who looks suspicious that goes around into the backyards of houses as neighborhood watch to keep an eye on them is illegal? Yep twisted country.

Nieghbourhood watch is fine as long as its only watching, patrolling is shaky ground because only private guards and street wardens that must be registered, carrying clearly displayed ID badges and clearly identify themselves have the authority to do that and they only have the power that any civilian would have. People can just decide to go walk about, there are no particular protections for them, if there is an incident that stands outside of the usual citizen detention law they may find themselves under arrest.

The only time a civilian can either pursue or attempt to detain a criminal is when they clearly see someone commit or attempt to commit a crime. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act details who can detain or suspect who and how they should go about it although most of it is reffering to the police, thats just one of the volumes you will need to check out.

If someone without a high vis vest and ID and without seeing someone commit a crime follows and chases someone around and then gets assaulted the person that hit them could have perfectly valid defense based around intimidation.

Charles_Martel:

LetalisK:
Why should the prosecutor have to prove anything? It just feels like Zimmerman killed Trayvon in cold blood, doesn't it? I mean, there's a significant gap in time at the critical stage where we know nothing about what happened, but I'd like to think my gut feeling is enough to surmount reasonable doubt.

I'm glad you weren't a juror. The prosecutor has to prove his case because in this country you are presumed innocent till proven guilty. So your speculations pulled from your er gut that override or take the place of facts gives you reasonable doubt. I'll say again I'm glad you weren't a juror on this case and hope you were never one or will be one.

dumbseizure:

LetalisK:
Why should the prosecutor have to prove anything? It just feels like Zimmerman killed Trayvon in cold blood, doesn't it? I mean, there's a significant gap in time at the critical stage where we know nothing about what happened, but I'd like to think my gut feeling is enough to surmount reasonable doubt.

Oh good.

Well, unluckily for you, juries, courts and judges don't run on "feelings".

Seriously? You would like to think how you feel, oh so deep down inside, is enough to shake reasonable doubt against the over 200 pieces of evidence that they presented?

They run on FACTS and EVIDENCE, not on someones perceived feelings.

Did either one of you bother to read the rest of the thread, particularly my other posts, let alone the quoted post where I outright said "there's a significant gap in time at the critical stage where we know nothing about what happened"? I thought that would be a dead giveaway that I was being sarcastic.

LetalisK:
Did either one of you bother to read the rest of the thread, particularly my other posts, let alone the quoted post where I outright said "there's a significant gap in time at the critical stage where we know nothing about what happened"? I thought that would be a dead giveaway that I was being sarcastic.

To be fair, considering that there are a fair amount of posters in the thread who do just that, allowing their view be swayed by how they feel rather than the facts, it's not unreasonable to see why they took your post at face value. Besides, Poe's Law.

TheStatutoryApe:

Shock and Awe:
No it is not. Honestly I have not been able to find the specific Florida law on the subject, but under Ohio law(the only one I could find) the defense is presumed to have acted in self defense and burden of proof is upon the Prosecution and the State to prove otherwise. If the state cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not in self defense to the jury then it must find a defendant not guilty; as we saw today.

Not going to read this whole thread to see whether anyone else has pointed this out or not but this is the very second line in the link you provided...

The burden of going forward with the evidence of an affirmative defense, and the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, for an affirmative defense, is upon the accused.

I'm not talking about arcane legalities here. This is pretty standard stuff.

edit: The presumption of self defense mentioned in your link is specific to persons who are inside their home (or vehicle) and acting upon an intruder. This is the so-called "Castle Doctrine" and is a special case that only applies in some states.

I found the Florida law. Look to the second paragraph of the section covering immunity from prosecution. It states that individuals may only be prosecuted if it is suspected that their use of force was unlawful. It is the prosecution making the claim that the use was unlawful and the burden of proof is upon the prosecution. The law varies from state to state, this is Florida's law. As for Castle Doctrine Florida and many other states actually take it to the next level by giving a sweeping statute for individuals to be able to stand their ground anywhere.

What you are saying may be correct for where you are(and apparently Ohio as my reading comprehension was out to lunch) but it is not Florida law.

Super Not Cosmo:

xDarc:
The people in here doing a retread of this case baffle me. You read some of these posts in this thread, it's the same stuff people were saying over a year ago before there was even gonna be a trial. It's like that a jury found him not guilty has changed nothing... except that it's over and anyone who said Zimmerman was guilty is wrong, it's official at this point. But that doesn't stop some people I guess.

Well it's not completely over yet. The DOJ is investigating whether or not George Zimmerman violated "No_Limit Trayvon's" civil rights and then there is the impending civil trial. The federal charges are unlikely to come about I'd think as they would have an even higher level of burden than was had in this most recent trial and that one should probably have been tossed out for lack of evidence. The civil trial though may have a shot though I wouldn't think it would be a great one.

Zimmerman won self-defense. Though the Federal government has ways of fucking people over. I highly doubt that anything will come of it. Worse case Zimmerman might have to play perfect citizen. Though I doubt the Feds, could care less about Zimmerman at this point.

Not G. Ivingname:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NEIGHBORHOOD_WATCH_CALIFORNIA_PROTESTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-07-14-06-36-06

There were riots because of this verdict, or at least a riot.

It wasn't a repeat of the LA riots, but some windows were broken, fires set, and a police car was damaged. People, no matter what you feel about Zimmerman, this trial, self defense, or guns, it is time to let this go. The only opinions that mattered are the twelve jurors. Nothing you say or do, besides radically amending (or redoing) the constitution to allow retrials even after a verdict has been reached by Zimmerman's twelve peers, your not going to change the verdict.

Even going out to lynch Zimmerman will only put more blood on everyones hand.

If there is something to be learned from this trial, take it to heart, whatever it may be, and move on.

Violence will not bring back the dead.

Actually, it was a group of anarchists that wanted to start a riot but got stomped by the police before it can spread.

You don't fuck with the LAPD anymore, this isn't 1992. I don't know what those kids were thinking. Especially when they are on a tactical alert, what made them think they could even stand a chance?

Ultratwinkie:

You don't fuck with the LAPD anymore, this isn't 1992. I don't know what those kids were thinking. Especially when they are on a tactical alert, what made them think they could even stand a chance?

I guess they just thought it would be a good moment to become ruffians, or even scallywags.[1]

But yeah. Stupid. Some people just jump at any chance to cause mayhem.

[1] Cookies for those who get the reference

madwarper:

LetalisK:
Did either one of you bother to read the rest of the thread, particularly my other posts, let alone the quoted post where I outright said "there's a significant gap in time at the critical stage where we know nothing about what happened"? I thought that would be a dead giveaway that I was being sarcastic.

To be fair, considering that there are a fair amount of posters in the thread who do just that, allowing their view be swayed by how they feel rather than the facts, it's not unreasonable to see why they took your post at face value. Besides, Poe's Law.

I guess, maybe. It's sad that I might not have been outrageous enough.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked