RE: George Zimmerman Update...

RE: George Zimmerman Update... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

mnottertail -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/5/2012 11:21:29 AM)
I figured you would say that, but as we see you have been wrong all along. Just more of it.

mnottertail -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/5/2012 11:23:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun Burden isn't on Zimmerman to prove self defense. It's on the State to disprove it. and you dont understand burden of proof in the legal sense. simple and clear as that from your many posts attesting to it. Your position presumes guilty until proven innocent. You might want to take some remedial reading and comprehension classes. My position assumes nothing, you are the only one assuming anything.

Raiikun -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/5/2012 11:27:37 AM)
And you're unable to prove I've been wrong. In Florida, the burden is on the State to disprove George didn't act in self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. If you think that's wrong, prove it.

Lucylastic -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/5/2012 11:29:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun Well, a woman might not have turned back around and confronted George like the evidence and witness statements indicate Trayvon did. so if someone is being followed, they should run away and hope they dont get shot in the back??? kinda puts your stand your ground law in a dumb light doesnt it??? why isnt someone allowed to confront someone following them???? or is that only in your "zimmerman was justified" world

mnottertail -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/5/2012 11:31:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun And you're unable to prove I've been wrong. In Florida, the burden is on the State to disprove George didn't act in self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. If you think that's wrong, prove it. Why bother? you will not be involved in the case down there, by Black's Law (9th ed) definitions you meet all the necessary and sufficient conditions to be an idiot, and will therefore be ignored. Prove you are not.

Raiikun -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/5/2012 11:33:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun Well, a woman might not have turned back around and confronted George like the evidence and witness statements indicate Trayvon did. so if someone is being followed, they should run away and hope they dont get shot in the back??? kinda puts your stand your ground law in a dumb light doesnt it??? why isnt someone allowed to confront someone following them???? or is that only in your "zimmerman was justified" world He wasn't being followed at the time of the encounter. The NEN call by George makes it clear that he lost sight of Trayvon long enough to render actions he had taken up to that point as no longer contemporaneously threatening to Trayvon, according to Florida Law. There was at least a couple minutes where George had no idea where Trayvon was while still on the phone with NEN. The crime scene also shows the location of the beginning of the struggle, confirmed by witnesses 11 and 20, proves Trayvon returned from where he had ran. Hardly the action of someone who is scared. That makes Trayvon the aggressor at that point. The crime scene doesn't lie. Those factors makes the self defense case for George. If not then look at what happened next. George ends up with head injuries and is pinned to the ground by Trayvon.This is supported by the injuries themself, George's clothes being wet and witness #6. Again, self defense even if George was the aggressor in the beginning...which he wasn't.

mnottertail -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/5/2012 11:33:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun And you're unable to prove I've been wrong. In Florida, the burden is on the State to disprove George didn't act in self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. If you think that's wrong, prove it. And you have been unable to prove you are right. the burden on the State is not the burden of disprove. You ain't getting it, in fact you ain't getting nothing.

Raiikun -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/5/2012 11:35:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Prove you are not. Stieh v. State It was the State's burden to overcome Stieh's theory of self-defense and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Stieh was not acting lawfully when he stabbed the victim. See Behanna, 985 So. 2d at 555. As noted by this court in Jenkins, HN7"self-defense cases are intensely fact-specific." 942 So. 2d at 916. But where the evidence " 'leaves room for two or more inferences of fact, at least one of which is consistent with the defendant's hypothesis of innocence, [it] is not legally sufficient to make a case for the jury.' Montijo v. State When a defendant claims self-defense, the State maintains the burden of proving the defendant committed the crime and did not act in self-defense. See id.; Mosansky v. State, 33 So. 3d 756, 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). The burden never shifts to the defendant to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, he must simply present enough evidence to support giving the instruction. Falwell v. State Defendant [is] 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)... 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

farglebargle -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/5/2012 11:47:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun Well, a woman might not have turned back around and confronted George like the evidence and witness statements indicate Trayvon did. George was EXPLICITLY TRAINED not to follow any suspects. He was also EXPLICITLY TOLD no to pursue Trayvon Martin. So, if it was a woman, it would be clear that George Zimmerman was acting -- not out of any civic duty -- but rather according to his own twisted agenda.

Lucylastic -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/5/2012 11:49:56 AM)
million dollars bail... well bugger me,

mnottertail -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/5/2012 11:50:29 AM)
And there you have it, as I described it. The burden never shifts to the defendant to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, he must simply present enough evidence to support giving the instruction. And his throat will present enough evidence (that is easy to do, it doesnt say reasonable evidence, or correct evidence, or factual evidence) the State must present evidence of reasonable doubt in the meaning of evidence. If they meet that burden of proof, he is fucked, if not, hes not. If they present contrary damning evidence (not fact) that leads to a slippery slope of disbelief that meets the burden of proof, he can't counter that and it looks like he is lying about this and that therefore, then he is fucked. There is very little FACT in this case other than names, ages and martin is dead at zimmermans hand. So far they really got nothing else. And that is why there will be a trial.

farglebargle -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/5/2012 11:50:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun And you're unable to prove I've been wrong. In Florida, the burden is on the State to disprove George didn't act in self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. If you think that's wrong, prove it. For George to claim self-defense, he has to take the stand. George refused to take the stand to offer any explanation why he defrauded the court and his own attorney, so what do you think the odds of him taking the stand going forward are? And once George IS on the stand, it's a no-brainer. His testimony will be completely discarded, and thus there will be no reasonable doubt to the State's case.

Raiikun -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/5/2012 11:51:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle George was EXPLICITLY TRAINED not to follow any suspects. He was also EXPLICITLY TOLD no to pursue Trayvon Martin. No proof George followed Trayvon after being advised not to. The location of where the fight began indicates that Trayvon turned around and confronted George. Trayvon had a head start and disappeared. Then over 2 minutes later he shows back up at the spot that George had lost him.

Louve00 -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/5/2012 11:51:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun Well, a woman might not have turned back around and confronted George like the evidence and witness statements indicate Trayvon did. so if someone is being followed, they should run away and hope they dont get shot in the back??? kinda puts your stand your ground law in a dumb light doesnt it??? why isnt someone allowed to confront someone following them???? or is that only in your "zimmerman was justified" world He wasn't being followed at the time of the encounter. The NEN call by George makes it clear that he lost sight of Trayvon long enough to render actions he had taken up to that point as no longer contemporaneously threatening to Trayvon, according to Florida Law. There was at least a couple minutes where George had no idea where Trayvon was while still on the phone with NEN. The crime scene also shows the location of the beginning of the struggle, confirmed by witnesses 11 and 20, proves Trayvon returned from where he had ran. Hardly the action of someone who is scared. That makes Trayvon the aggressor at that point. The crime scene doesn't lie. Ahh, but you see, Tayvon was within site of his home. The physical altercation took place within view of Trayvon's front door. What if Trayvon hid on George, in an attempt to make a mad dash for home, only to be discovered by George when he tried and when caught in the act of his effort to do that, had no choice, but to either run (and in running, with George convinced and verbalized to the NEN "these guys always get away" or whatever the exact words were, would have taken the chance of getting shot in the back (yes, I'm assuming as much as you are, in this post, now). But instead, stood his ground, like a man, not having a clue George was a chicken shit and instead of fighting blow by blow would just blow the teens shit away with a gun. We really have no idea what was going down without more evidence. Without Trayvon's side of the story. Especially since George lies and in the judges own words, manipulates. Those factors makes the self defense case for George. If not then look at what happened next. George ends up with head injuries and is pinned to the ground by Trayvon.This is supported by the injuries themself, George's clothes being wet and witness #6. Again, self defense even if George was the aggressor in the beginning...which he wasn't.

farglebargle -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/5/2012 11:53:15 AM)
Trayvon Martin's girlfriend says she heard Zimmerman approach. Zimmerman ADMITS making a threatening motion, as if to draw a weapon. You don't get to claim self-defense after you come up to someone and grab for a weapon, do you? Of course, Zimmerman would have to testify to his version of events under oath, and open to cross examination. I just don't see that happening, but he's welcome to try.

Raiikun -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/5/2012 11:54:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle For George to claim self-defense, he has to take the stand. Wrong again. Wright v. State: A self-defense instruction for the charge of battery on a police officer can be supported by circumstantial evidence from which a jury could infer that the defendant believed that his conduct was necessary to defend himself from an officer's use of excessive force in making an arrest. See Johnson v. State, 634 So. 2d 1144, 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). To raise self-defense, a defendant [**5] does not have to testify directly about his intent behind an act occurring in the past, or that he made a conscious decision to defend himself in a certain way. Not remembering an event does not preclude the possibility of either an intentional act or an accident. From the circumstances surrounding an arrest made with excessive force, a jury might infer that a defendant reasonably believed that responsive force was reasonable and necessary and, therefore, proper. As the second district stated in Kilgore v. State, 271 So. 2d 148, 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972) ....it is not the quantum or the quality of the proof as to self-defense that determines the requirement for giving the charge. If any evidence of a substantial character is adduced, either upon cross-examination of State witnesses or upon direct examination of the defendant and/or his witnesses, the element of self-defense becomes an issue, and the jury, as the trier of the facts, should be duly charged as to the law thereon, because it is the jury's function to determine that issue. Goode v. State The evidence supporting appellant's theory may be adduced from cross-examination of State witnesses or direct examination of the defense witnesses. See Wright, 705 So. 2d at 104 (citing Kilgore v. State, 271 So. 2d 148, 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)).

farglebargle -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/5/2012 11:54:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle George was EXPLICITLY TRAINED not to follow any suspects. He was also EXPLICITLY TOLD no to pursue Trayvon Martin. No proof George followed Trayvon after being advised not to. The location of where the fight began indicates that Trayvon turned around and confronted George. Trayvon had a head start and disappeared. Then over 2 minutes later he shows back up at the spot that George had lost him. Just checking, but is the sky blue when you look out the window, or do you perceive some other color?

farglebargle -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/5/2012 11:56:32 AM)
Given the Judge says that Zimmerman was PLANING ON RUNNING, what do you think the chances are of finding a bondsman who will take the risk?

mnottertail -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/5/2012 11:58:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle George was EXPLICITLY TRAINED not to follow any suspects. He was also EXPLICITLY TOLD no to pursue Trayvon Martin. No proof George followed Trayvon after being advised not to. The location of where the fight began indicates that Trayvon turned around and confronted George. Trayvon had a head start and disappeared. Then over 2 minutes later he shows back up at the spot that George had lost him. But there is evidence. You aint getting it, is it enough to meet burden of proof? That among many pieces of evidence, remains to be seen.

Raiikun -> RE: George Zimmerman Update... (7/5/2012 11:59:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Louve00 Ahh, but you see, Tayvon was within site of his home. The physical altercation took place within view of Trayvon's front door. The altercation took place 150' away from George's truck, within line of sight of it even, at the spot George lost him, at least a couple minutes after George lost him. That would have required Trayvon to have come back to that spot from wherever it was he went.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625