Trevon Martin

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Yo, so that Zimmerman guy is innocent.

What do you guys think about it?

[thalbergmad]

It has even reached the news here in England so it must be a big thing in the US.

I had better not post what I think.

Thal

[iansinclair]

Please, Rach -- this forum is one of the few places I can go on the web which is free of politics... can't we keep it that way?

[rachmaninoff_forever]

It has even reached the news here in England so it must be a big thing in the US.

I had better not post what I think.

Thal

Dude go ahead!  Nobody is gonna bash you on anything!

Everyone on piano street is nice!

Except for one person...  But that kid doesn't count.

[dima_76557]

Yo, so that Zimmerman guy is innocent.

What do you guys think about it?

Without drawing this into politics (gun carrying policies etc.), I think the following is not far from the truth:
From what I read, it feels like Mr. Zimmerman was already hostile against black people in general and provoked a fight with someone he thought was helpless and "suspicious". When it was clear he had miscalculated his forces and was going to lose a fair fight, he took a DELIBERATE decision and killed Mr. Martin with a shot in the heart. That makes it murder, not self defense, since Mr. Martin did not use or threaten to use any cold weapons of any kind. Problem in court: as a prosecutor, you have to prove that beyond reasonable doubt, but the "experts" made mistakes in the process of gathering evidence, and thus "helped" lose the case. Very sad indeed.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Without drawing this into politics (gun carrying policies etc.), I think the following is not far from the truth:
From what I read, it feels like Mr. Zimmerman was already hostile against black people in general and provoked a fight with someone he thought was helpless and "suspicious". When it was clear he had miscalculated his forces and was going to lose a fair fight, he took a DELIBERATE decision and killed Mr. Martin with a shot in the heart. That makes it murder, not self defense, since Mr. Martin did not use or threaten to use any cold weapons of any kind. Problem in court: as a prosecutor, you have to prove that beyond reasonable doubt, but the "experts" made mistakes in the process of gathering evidence, and thus "helped" lose the case. Very sad indeed.

Someone told me that the Zimmerman guy was an idiot, not a stone cold killer, which was why he rightfully was innocent.  So pretty much he said it was an accident.

Dude it doesn't matter, if I go to an art exhibit and accidentally break a multi million dollar work, I still have to pay for it, this is no different.

Anyways, for the most part I agree with you.  But just because the person you're fighting against doesn't have a weapon, and you whip out the fun on him, it doesn't mean that it's not in self defense.  That person could be a big ass heavy weight fighter and could easily be capable of killing you.

[davidjosepha]

From what I read, it feels like Mr. Zimmerman was already hostile against black people in general and provoked a fight with someone he thought was helpless and "suspicious".

The news tried to make this into a race issue when it is not that at all. CNN edited his 911 call to make Zimmerman look like a racist--for example, they aired him saying, "This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black." Obviously, that sounds racist, but they edited out the part in the middle. "This guy looks like he's up to no good," Zimmerman says. Then, the 911 operator asked if the suspicious guy was black, white, or hispanic, to which Zimmerman said, "He looks black," because, ya know, Trayvon was black. Just one example of ways the news has skewed the whole thing to make it look like Trayvon was racist. Here are a few other facts about Zimmerman. He's part black. He mentored and tutored minority children (including black children). When he was younger, he started a business with a close friend of his, who happened to be black. He lead the inquiry into the official death of a black homeless man, and publicly criticized the Sanford Police Department for allegedly covering it up. He lived in a gated community, in which 20% of the residents were black and no one testified that Zimmerman had been stalking or harassing people in the neighborhood, or that he had shown any type of bigoted or racist behavior.

Obviously, I can't look inside his head. He could very well be a huge racist. But there's nothing in any of his previous actions that would make you reasonably assume that race had anything to do with the incident.

He's also not white, so if people would stop blaming my entire race for something a Hispanic man did, that'd be great too.

As for the case, there's no reasonable way a jury could convict him. Maybe Zimmerman egged him on, but Trayvon was a wannabe thug and most likely attacked Zimmerman. Trayvon had been in fights before, and possibly had also attacked a bus driver. There's evidence he might have been a burglar. He definitely smoked weed, sipped lean, and used DXM regularly, and might have sold bud too. He was in the process of obtaining an illegal firearm when he died. He was also 6 foot and muscular, and probably could have taken Zimmerman in a fight (making Zimmerman's self-defense argument reasonable). None of that proves Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, but it shows that it wouldn't have gone against his nature--the news tried to make it look like Trayvon was an innocent little kid who couldn't have possibly instigated anything.

Zimmerman's shots were also fired from the ground, and there's a reasonable argument that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman attacking him.

Basically, it's very sad that Trayvon is dead. But there's definitely not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman, and evidence seems to back up his claim that Trayvon attacked him. And I guess you could say he shouldn't have shot Trayvon, even if he was being attacked, but self-defense isn't illegal, and it's easy to say you would have done something different in his place when you weren't in his place.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

.



He's also not white, so if people would stop blaming my entire race for something a Hispanic man did, that'd be great too.

Lol

[austinarg]

There was no evidence to truly prove it was anything but self-defense.

Good verdict, sad situation.

[j_menz]

There was no evidence to truly prove it was anything but self-defense.

Good verdict, sad situation.

In most places (ie wherever there isn't a "stand your ground" law in place such as there is in Florida), if you raise a defence of self defence, you have an initial evidentiary onus (ie, establish that there is at least enough evidence available to make it a possibility) that must then be rebutted, most often beyond reasonable doubt.

Since Zimmerman didn't take the stand, there seems me that that evidentiary onus would not be satisfied here just on the basis of what was presented. It was, as I say, not required here. It should be.

These laws are a travesty, and in a country armed to the teeth and whose national passtime seems to be taking pot shots at one another, also a tragedy.

[ahinton]

In most places (ie wherever there isn't a "stand your ground" law in place such as there is in Florida), if you raise a defence of self defence, you have an initial evidentiary onus (ie, establish that there is at least enough evidence available to make it a possibility) that must then be rebutted, most often beyond reasonable doubt.

Since Zimmerman didn't take the stand, there seems me that that evidentiary onus would not be satisfied here just on the basis of what was presented. It was, as I say, not required here. It should be.

These laws are a travesty, and in a country armed to the teeth and whose national passtime seems to be taking pot shots at one another, also a tragedy.

Agreed on all counts. It seems clear that the extent to which evidence is required and the manner in which it is treated tends to vary from case to case and state to state; that self-defence can in certain cases and places be accepted in the absence of evidence of attack says it all really and the claim that this was a "good verdict" is true only in a context in which the dispensation of justice is in practice seen to be something of a low priority. It's not just the laws that are a travesty; it's the judicial licence under which they can be manipulated at best and broadly ignored at worst.

That said, it's pretty certain that we've not heard the last of this one...

Best,

Alistair

[davidjosepha]

(ie wherever there isn't a "stand your ground" law in place such as there is in Florida)

Florida's "stand your ground" law never even entered into the courtroom. Zimmerman was found not guilty based on the same criteria for self-defense other states have.

(ie, establish that there is at least enough evidence available to make it a possibility)

There definitely was, and that is why Zimmerman is not in prison currently.

[oxy60]

In most places (ie wherever there isn't a "stand your ground" law in place such as there is in Florida), if you raise a defence of self defence, you have an initial evidentiary onus (ie, establish that there is at least enough evidence available to make it a possibility) that must then be rebutted, most often beyond reasonable doubt.

Since Zimmerman didn't take the stand, there seems me that that evidentiary onus would not be satisfied here just on the basis of what was presented. It was, as I say, not required here. It should be.

These laws are a travesty, and in a country armed to the teeth and whose national passtime seems to be taking pot shots at one another, also a tragedy.

In the USA you innocent until proven guilty. If you are the accused  the State must prove your guilt to the satisfaction of a jury. You don't have to prove anything. This is so unique that even citizens of the USA think it's the other way around. We now have screaming mobs on the street that think GZ had to prove it was self defense. He doesn't. The state must prove it wasn't and they didn't.

Even in the US system, sometimes only the accused and the jury are the only ones not being paid by the State. Without that jury you are toast!

 

[davidjosepha]

If you are the accused  the State must prove your guilt to the satisfaction of a jury.

I love how every single person I know seems to think they know better than the jury. Ya know, the group of people who actually have access to all the evidence, have heard both sides' arguments, and come to the conclusion that there isn't satisfactory evidence to convict him. There are times juries make bad decisions, but the system usually works out to be fair and just. This case is no exception.

[ahinton]

I love how every single person I know seems to think they know better than the jury. Ya know, the group of people who actually have access to all the evidence, have heard both sides' arguments, and come to the conclusion that there isn't satisfactory evidence to convict him. There are times juries make bad decisions, but the system usually works out to be fair and just. This case is no exception.

Whatever the detail of this case and whatever level or nature of evidence that might or might not have been available to the judge and jury, I am unaware that there has been any argument about whether of not the accused actually shot the deceased or that, as a direct consequence of that shooting, its victim died. It is therefore not simply a matter of other people thinking that they know better than the jury; for a jury to stify itelf that the person who shot the victim was acting in self-defence, there should surely be sufficient evidence that he was being attacked by the victim and that defending himself was not only justifiable in itself but also that doing so by the use of a firearm was proportionate to the nature and gravity of the alleged attack.

Were a jury to believe there to be insufficient evidence to convict the person who shot and killed the victim, it would need to have - or at least ought to have - sufficient evidence that shooting that victim was justified; in the absence of adequate evidence that the accused was being attacked by that victim either by means of another firearm or something at least as dangerous and/or threatening, neither justification for nor porportionality of the shooting could have been established and the jury would accordingly appear not to have done its job properly; whilst it's quite correct that jury should only convict if there's sufficient evidence to do so, it should likewise only exonerate an accused person if it has sufficient evidence to do that and, as I've said, the fact that the accused shot the victim dead is not in doubt.

Best,

Alistair

[davidjosepha]

for a jury to stify itelf that the person who shot the victim was acting in self-defence, there should surely be sufficient evidence that he was being attacked by the victim and that defending himself was not only justifiable in itself but also that doing so by the use of a firearm was proportionate to the nature and gravity of the alleged attack.

Trayvon was almost 6 foot and muscular, Zimmerman was 5'7" and obese. If, as Zimmerman claims, Trayvon attacked him, I believe he is perfectly justified in using the only reasonable defense he had to defend himself. Zimmerman had no obligation to allow himself to be physically assaulted by someone who could easily deal permanent or fatal damage to him. Assuming that there is sufficient evidence that Trayvon attacked him, he was justified in using lethal force, given that a gun was the only defense available to him. Now, I think it can be safely assumed, based on the verdict, that the jury considered there to be sufficient evidence for self-defense. If you, or others, disagree with this assessment, perhaps you should first make sure you have read every argument and piece of evidence used during the trial before publicly defaming Zimmerman?

[ahinton]

Trayvon was almost 6 foot and muscular, Zimmerman was 5'7" and obese. If, as Zimmerman claims, Trayvon attacked him, I believe he is perfectly justified in using the only reasonable defense he had to defend himself. Zimmerman had no obligation to allow himself to be physically assaulted by someone who could easily deal permanent or fatal damage to him. Assuming that there is sufficient evidence that Trayvon attacked him, he was justified in using lethal force, given that a gun was the only defense available to him. Now, I think it can be safely assumed, based on the verdict, that the jury considered there to be sufficient evidence for self-defense. If you, or others, disagree with this assessment, perhaps you should first make sure you have read every argument and piece of evidence used during the trial before publicly defaming Zimmerman?

I cannot speak for others, but I am not personally defaming Zimmerman, either publicly or privately. Yes, one might "safely" assume from the verdict that the jury believed there to be sufficient evidence to prove self-defence but, as there appear to have been no witnesses to the shooting or to what may have happened between the two men immediately before it, I merely question the nature, extent and reliability of such evidence. Using lethal force is justified only in defence against someone else using the same against one, otherwise that force may resonably be deemed disproportionate, as in the case, say, of someone threatening with a stick someone else brandishing a machine-gun (not that I am suggesting that this was the case here, of course).

In Britain, Zimmerman would most likely not have gotten away scot free on the basis of such slender evidence reliant upon allegations of self-defence against attack, given that there is no doubt that he did shoot the victim dead; if I'd shot someone dead (which is unlikely, given that I do not carry a firearm and am not that way inclined in any case) in front of no witnesses and then openly and frankly admitted to having done so, I'd not fancy my chances in any British court.

Best,

Alistair

[oxy60]

Don't get it backwards.

The State's obligation was to prove the charge of Second Degree Murder. There are certain exacting tests of evidence that the prosecution must fulfill. You would have to look that up for the State of Florida.  In that law I must assume that self defense is an acceptable defense.

Something else you might consider is that all our judges are elected by the people as well as the state's prosecuting attorneys.

As we see those pumped up speakers inciting others to riot remember these words:

'what a fool believes, no wise man can dispell"

[davidjosepha]

The State's obligation was to prove the charge of Second Degree Murder. There are certain exacting tests of evidence that the prosecution must fulfill. You would have to look that up for the State of Florida.  In that law I must assume that self defense is an acceptable defense.

The burden of proof that Zimmerman killed Trayvon was on the prosecution; however, it was already readily apparent that Zimmerman killed Trayvon. The self-defense argument placed the burden of proof on Zimmerman to show that although the prosecution's claim was indeed true, his actions were justified under self-defense laws.

[iansinclair]

Sigh...

I do dislike political discussions.  They tend to make unpleasantness, if not enemies, of folks who should be friends.

That said...

First, in US jurisprudence, in criminal cases, the defendant -- in this case, Mr. Zimmerman -- is presumed to be innocent unless the State -- in this case, Florida -- can demonstrate, to a jury of the defendant's peers, that, beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant is indeed guilty of whatever it was he or she was charged with.  Note that this is a different criterion from that in a civil trial, in which the degree of proof required is much lower.  But in a criminal case, this is "reasonable doubt"; just that ordinary degree of doubt an ordinary person might have about something.

There were three possible charges (one brought in during the trial): first degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter.  Both the first and the second degree murder charges require that it be shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was some degree of premeditation.  The manslaughter charge does not require premeditation, but it does admit the defence of self defence (clearly not admissible in the case of murder).  Here again, the burden of proof is on the State, not the defendant: the State must be able to convince the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was NOT acting in self defence, if a self defence claim is advanced.

The purpose of the jury is to ascertain the facts of the case, and make a decision on the charges.  In this instance, they have done so.

There are three other comments, though, which need to be made, it seems to me.  First, this style of law, which is based on English common law, is quite different from that which prevails in most of the rest of the world; in continental Europe, the law is based on Roman practice, which is almost the reverse of English common law.  This can be confusing to those not accustomed to English common law.  Second, in this wonderful age of the internet and everyone an expert, it is not uncommon for folks to look at the results of a high profile case such as this one and question the conclusion of the jury, particularly when the media have been pushing an alternative judgement.  This is all very well and good, but if we are to be a nation under law, one of the most fundamental things is that we all respect the judgement of the jury in criminal cases.  We may not like their conclusion, but there it is.  So be it.  The third is that much has been made in the media -- and is now being made in the streets -- that there is a racial angle to this.  That is possible.  However, may I point out, at the risk of being very unpopular, that the definition of racism is actions or patterns of behaviour in which the race of an individual is of significant, if not primary, importance, in judging the actions or behaviours of the individual (or group).  There is still a great deal of racism in the United States; it would be idiotic to deny it.  Before residents of other countries condemn it on those grounds, though, please examine yourselves, and "let him who is without sin cast the first stone".  In this specific instance, neither the race of the defendant (Hispanic) nor the victim (African-American, in the current terminology) could have been relevant, contrary to some popular opinion (it would have been necessary to for the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was premeditation and that the motivation was based on race for it to have been significant).

Peace be with you all,

[davidjosepha]

Here again, the burden of proof is on the State, not the defendant: the State must be able to convince the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was NOT acting in self defence, if a self defence claim is advanced.

Ah, do you have a source on this? This is what I originally thought, but then after a (very) slight bit of research online, I got the impression that I was incorrect and that instead it was as I described in my post above yours.

[iansinclair]

Ah, do you have a source on this? This is what I originally thought, but then after a (very) slight bit of research online, I got the impression that I was incorrect and that instead it was as I described in my post above yours.

I'll look around and see what I can find; it's in case law, which makes that sort of thing very hard to track down!

[rachmaninoff_forever]

This is good guys!  The debate must go on!

Now what did I do with my pack of popcorn...

Ah there it is!

I'll be back...

[davidjosepha]

This is good guys!  The debate must go on!

Now what did I do with my pack of popcorn...

Ah there it is!

I'll be back...

Haven't heard your opinion yet, how bout you type yours up while I go make a bag of my own...

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Haven't heard your opinion yet, how bout you type yours up while I go make a bag of my own...

Well I don't know everything but...

I mean,

So that Zimmerman guy had a gun right?

Zimmerman with a gun confronted an unarmed kid even when he was told not to.

Zimmerman was getting the hands, so he was like, 'dang I'm feeling salty.  So I'm gonna shoot this kid in the face'.  Or wherever he shot him...  The chest right?



Did Zimmerman actually start the fight?  Or was he like, 'yo, what the he'll are you doing here' and Trevon was the one who started the fight.

If you ask me, if you start a fist fight with someone, and you're getting your ass kicked, whipping out the gun is a pregnant dog move.


I mean...  Consider this.

Zimmerman:  yo what the hell are you doing here?

Trevon:  who the hell are you?!  Take your ass home before you get knocked out!

Zimmerman:  what the hell you say?!  I'm sick of thugs like you running around my neighborhood.

Trevon:  what you say about my momma?!

*they both squat up*

*damn Trevon is giving him the hands*

*bink, bink, bink*

Zimmerman:  *sh*t, I fucked up!  Good thing I got my gun on me!*

*bang bang!*

*Trevon is dead*


If that's what happened, then he should be guilty.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

But if it went down like this...

Zimmerman:  yo what the hell are you doing here?!

Trevon:  who the he'll are you?!  Take your ass home before you get knocked out.

Zimmerman:  what the he'll you say?!  I'm sick of thugs like you running around my neighborhood.

Trevon:  what you say about my momma?!

*Trevon sticks him in the face*

*bink*

Trevon:  you messed with the wrong person today mothafucka.

*bink, bink, bink*

Zimmerman:  *man I fucked up.  Good thing I got my gun on me!*

*bang bang*



Then he should be innocent.

Unfortunately I don't know everything, so I don't know.

Eitherway Zimmerman is a dumbass.

[davidjosepha]

...

I (mostly) agree. Thing is, we don't really know what happened and I don't really feel comfortable putting a guy away for something there's a reasonable chance he didn't do. But yeh, he definitely wasn't minding his own business...was a pretty easily avoidable problem, he didn't really need to confront Trayvon even if he was up to no good since he had called the police and they were on their way, I think.

[davidjosepha]

But if it went down like this...

Zimmerman:  yo what the hell are you doing here?!

Trevon:  who the he'll are you?!  Take your ass home before you get knocked out.

Zimmerman:  what the he'll you say?!  I'm sick of thugs like you running around my neighborhood.

Trevon:  what you say about my momma?!

*Trevon sticks him in the face*

*bink*

Trevon:  you messed with the wrong person today mothafucka.

*bink, bink, bink*

Zimmerman:  *man I fucked up.  Good thing I got my gun on me!*

*bang bang*



Then he should be innocent.

Unfortunately I don't know everything, so I don't know.

lol

Eitherway Zimmerman is a dumbass.

haha I don't think too many people are debating that point

[ahinton]

In my native Scotland we have a conclusion in law of "not proven". How that would go down in Florida I have no idea. The problem in this case, it still seems to me, is that whilst, on the one hand, there is no doubt that one man killed another with a firearm, on the other hand no one witnessed this event and, accordingly, the credibility of any conclusive judgement one way or the other seems to me to be questionable, since conclusive and detailed witness evidence is and will remain unavailable. This fact seems to me to be of rather more obvious pertinence than any racial issues that might find themselves appended to some people's thoughts about this case.

Best,

Alistair

[iansinclair]

In my native Scotland we have a conclusion in law of "not proven". How that would go down in Florida I have no idea. The problem in this case, it still seems to me, is that whilst, on the one hand, there is no doubt that one man killed another with a firearm, on the other hand no one witnessed this event and, accordingly, the credibility of any conclusive judgement one way or the other seems to me to be questionable, since conclusive and detailed witness evidence is and will remain unavailable. This fact seems to me to be of rather more obvious pertinence than any racial issues that might find themselves appended to some people's thoughts about this case.

Best,

Alistair

I have always been very fond of the "not proven" verdict; it is so often the only really reasonable one.  I am also fond of the requirement for two independent lines of evidence -- which, unfortunately, Holyrood seems to be bent on doing away with.

Both of these avoid a lot of mischief.

(as you might guess from my screen name, my family hails from Orkney, although we haven't lived there for a rather long time!)

[ahinton]

I have always been very fond of the "not proven" verdict; it is so often the only really reasonable one.  I am also fond of the requirement for two independent lines of evidence -- which, unfortunately, Holyrood seems to be bent on doing away with.

Both of these avoid a lot of mischief.

(as you might guess from my screen name, my family hails from Orkney, although we haven't lived there for a rather long time!)

Well, Scottish justice might not seem to be deemed to suit everyone, but the problems so far left by this case appear to me to go rather beyond anything in which anyone might think that it could have been better had it held sway; the lack of witness evidence from the incident at the centre of the case is what bothers me the most. If no one saw happen what did happen, any jury conclusions on it will have by definiation to be predicated upon the paucity of evidence resulting from that lack of first-hand witnessing.

Anyway, I both hope and imagine that this will continue to run and run, encouraged by an understandably outraged public that funds the justice system that enabled pronouncement of the verdict concerned.

Best,

Alistair

[austinarg]

I would love to see rach4 testify all dialogue-like in court. Somehow, it's a kind of Chewbacca defense.

[g_s_223]

Having been cleared of the murder charge by unanimous verdict, Zimmerman will have his firearm returned to him: quite right too. He would be wise to be more cautious in future though.

[j_menz]

In the USA you innocent until proven guilty. If you are the accused  the State must prove your guilt to the satisfaction of a jury. You don't have to prove anything. This is so unique that even citizens of the USA think it's the other way around. We now have screaming mobs on the street that think GZ had to prove it was self defense. He doesn't. The state must prove it wasn't and they didn't.

Innocent until proven guilty (beyond reasonable doubt) is not unique to the US - it's the same standard that applies in all common law countries (UK, Australia, Canada NZ etc etc).

You misunderstand what an evidentiary onus is. It doesn't require that the defendant prove (either on the balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt) his innocence (in this case that he acted in self defence), but rather that if such a defence is raised he must establish that there is a t least some basis for raising it, whereupon the prosecution than has to rebut the defence beyond reasonable doubt.

The burden of proof that Zimmerman killed Trayvon was on the prosecution; however, it was already readily apparent that Zimmerman killed Trayvon. The self-defense argument placed the burden of proof on Zimmerman to show that although the prosecution's claim was indeed true, his actions were justified under self-defense laws.

No. The burden of proof was on the prosecution to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that there was no such justification.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Uh oh we got a lawyer here!  This is getting good!

Lay down the law J Menz!

Lol...


The reason why you weren't involved in the Trevon Martin case is because you're on tour right? 

When the heck are you coming to Chicago!!!

[j_menz]

When the heck are you coming to Chicago!!!

I'm waiting for Chicago to come to me. Or at least to some mutually agreed spot with better climate and fewer flying hours.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

I'm waiting for Chicago to come to me. Or at least to some mutually agreed spot with better climate and fewer flying hours.

What the heck our climate is fine!!!

[j_menz]

What the heck our climate is fine!!!

It doesn't get cool enough at night in summer, and it snows in winter.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

It doesn't get cool enough at night in summer, and it snows in winter.

Oh come on, stop being a whimp!  

A pair of trousers, and a button down shirt you can wear outside any day of the year.

https://m.memegenerator.co/instance/33047112

[j_menz]

We call them "thongs" here. I believe that means something else there.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

We call them "thongs" here. I believe that means something else there.

You call pants thongs?

What planet are you from?

Yeah thongs mean really skinny panties for girls. 

Panties for girls...  Well that was redundant.  Unless if there were panties for men.  That would be soo weird!  Nah,that doesn't exist.

[j_menz]

You call pants thongs?

No. Flip-flops.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

No. Flip-flops.

Oh I've heard of that.

[ahinton]

j_menz is correct in his observations here, although one does not need to be a professional laywer to be aware of and understand the basic facts about burden of proof, use of evidence and the rest. As I stated previously, we won't have heard the last of this for some time and, if perhaps it helps to draw attention to habitual miscarriages of justice and manipulation of the justice system, the tragedy of Mr Martin's death might at least have some positive outcome, rather as might the tragic suicide of Frances Andrade following her court appearance as a witness in the case earlier this year against a teacher at Chetham's School of Music in Manchester, UK for sexual abuse of minors (for which he was ultimately convicted and sentenced to six years in prison), in the light of the considrable additional exposure of the apparently endemic nature of the problem of abuse in certain specialist music education establishments.

Best,

Alistair

[oxy60]

The burden of proof that Zimmerman killed Trayvon was on the prosecution; however, it was already readily apparent that Zimmerman killed Trayvon. The self-defense argument placed the burden of proof on Zimmerman to show that although the prosecution's claim was indeed true, his actions were justified under self-defense laws.

No. The State must prove it wasn't self defense under Florida law. GZ does not need to prove  anything.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

No. The State must prove it wasn't self defense under Florida law. GZ does not need to prove  anything.

So if I shot someone in the face and admit it, it's up for the state to prove that it wasn't self defense?

That's a stupid law.  How the heck is the burden of proof on the negative claim?!  

The burden of proof should be on the positive claim.  

If I said that I had a dragon in my pocket, it's not up to you to prove that I don't have one.  How in the world are you gonna prove that I don't have a dragon in my pocket?  It's up to me to prov that I do have one in my pocket!

Man, I'm glad I don't live in florida.  Unless if Illinois has that same stupid law.  In that case, I'll have to end the world sooner...





Ooooooooh I get it, it's difficult to disute his alibi cause he was the only person there.  

Anyways, I think he's lying.  Of course you would say it was in self defense!  Why the heck would you not say it was in self defense?!

And I think it's awfully convenient for him that Trevon is dead.  Something smells fishy here...

Give him one of those CAT scan lie detector tests. 

[oxy60]

So if I shot someone in the face and admit it, it's up for the state to prove that it wasn't self defense?

That's a stupid law.  How the heck is the burden of proof on the negative claim?!  

The burden of proof should be on the positive claim.  

If I said that I had a dragon in my pocket, it's not up to you to prove that I don't have one.  How in the world are you gonna prove that I don't have a dragon in my pocket?  It's up to me to prov that I do have one in my pocket!

Man, I'm glad I don't live in florida.  Unless if Illinois has that same stupid law.  In that case, I'll have to end the world sooner...

Ooooooooh I get it, it's difficult to disute his alibi cause he was the only person there.  

Anyways, I think he's lying.  Of course you would say it was in self defense!  Why the heck would you not say it was in self defense?!

And I think it's awfully convenient for him that Trevon is dead.  Something smells fishy here...

Give him one of those CAT scan lie detector tests. 

Better look up the specific laws in your state. The definitions for murder 1, murder 2, manslaughter, etc., vary by state. However all still allow you to defend yourself. Where I live on the left coast deadly force can not be used to defend property, only a person. Just make sure the body falls inside your house! No shooting of prowlers in your fenced yard. For that you have a pit bull!

[j_menz]

If I said that I had a dragon in my pocket, it's not up to you to prove that I don't have one.  How in the world are you gonna prove that I don't have a dragon in my pocket?  

Oh please. There's an app. 



Just too easy.

[faulty_damper]

From what I read, it feels like Mr. Zimmerman was already hostile against black people in general...

I seriously doubt that...
https://dailycaller.com/2012/04/04/zimmerman-demanded-discipline-in-2010-race-related-beating-for-officers-who-investigated-martin-shooting/

The gist of the article tells us that in 2010, Zimmerman actively went around to hand out and post flyers in defense of a homeless man, who was black, who was beaten up by a cop's son.  The son was not arrested and it appeared to be a coverup by the police department.

He also tutored black youth and voted for Obama...
https://www.examiner.com/article/ignored-by-media-zimmerman-voted-for-obama-tutored-black-kids

*He is also part black!  He's some f'ed up racist if there ever is one.

[timothy42b]

I watched bits and pieces of the trial on CNN.

It was pretty clear the prosecution did not prove their case, therefore the verdict was correct, though unpalatable.

I suspect racism entered in a couple of ways.

Prosecutors aren't stupid.  They must have known they had a weak case and were unlikely to prevail.  I think they were forced to bring it to trial because of the political implications - if they did not at least try, they might be seen as racist.

And the widespread protests over the verdict are racially affected as well.  They are assuming an innocent young black man was targeted and killed, which certainly does happen, but was not true in this specific case.

It's hard to know who provoked the actual physical part of the confrontation.  It is clear that Trayvon could have avoided it, so the fight was voluntary on his part.  (He was an athlete and football star, Zimmerman was an obese out of shape middle aged guy;  there is no way he could chase and catch Trayvon, and conversely there is no way he could run away and escape.)  The fight may or may not have been voluntary on Zimmerman's part.  The story he told says not, and it does sound plausible.  On the other hand, sometimes people get stupid on their own turf, and push their way into a fight they can't win.