|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On July 02 2013 02:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:21 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 02:16 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 02:08 Kaitlin wrote:
I just heard HLN discussing the upcoming testimony of the lead detective who said he was pressured into a murder 2 charge, even though he felt they didn't have evidence sufficient for such a charge. The dumb blonde bitch mentioned that it could be used to entice a plea to manslaughter. That's fucking illegal as hell to threaten prosecution for a charge not supported by evidence. Unbelievable. I know it happens all the time, but it's one of the things entirely fucked up about how prosecutors operate. First degree, second degree murder and manslaughter are all degrees of similar crimes. If you kill someone and it can't be proven that it is self defense or an accident(with no negligence on your part), you can be charged with one of those three crimes. His self defense claim is really questionable, since he can't prove he didn't instigate the event by following Treyvon. Even in Florida. Florida puts the burden on the prosecutor even for self defense. Zimmerman doesnt have to prove anything. With self defense, because Zimmerman has to prove he didn't instigate the event as well. The law does not allow people to pick fights and then shoot people in response. He also has to show that he had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, which also might be a challenge to prove. The "reasonable" threshold is the hardest part to avoid, since the jury get a lot of room to decide what is "reasonable".
No... the prosecution has to prove that Zimmerman instigated the event. It is assumed that Zimmerman didn't instigate the event, and it is entirely up to the prosecution to come up with evidence that says otherwise.
Further, he can easily point to his injuries as showing that he had reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.
|
On July 02 2013 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:21 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 02:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2013 01:57 xDaunt wrote:
I keep waiting for the State to put on something that even remotely resembles compelling evidence, but it just hasn't come yet. The takeaway from the admission of Zimmerman's statements so far is that they are entirely consistent with eyewitness testimony -- particularly the testimony of Good. With the inconsistencies in GZ's various accounts and the lack of reliability of eye witnesses (especially considering the conditions of the night in question), the door is definitely wide open for the prosecution to chip away at GZ's reasonable doubt. You have it ass backwards. The State has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is a good thing for Zimmerman. The existence of reasonable doubt means he walks. Pointing out inconsistencies in Zimmerman's statements (which appear very minor so far) doesn't really get the State anywhere. It's helpful to the extent that it undermines Zimmerman's credibility. However, it is no where near enough to secure a conviction, because the end result is that all it does is create more reasonable doubt. I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that the reasonable doubt GZ needs to be found not guilty is still vulnerable due to his inconsistent statements (See Breakdown on Pg 216), and the lack of reliability of eye witnesses to correctly identify someone.
No, I understand exactly what you're saying. I'm just not sure that you understand that you are essentially putting the burden on Zimmerman in both this post and your previous post. The simple point is this: merely pointing out inconsistencies in Zimmerman's statements isn't going to secure a conviction for the State. It's not even close to being sufficient evidence. They need some kind of evidence that not only supports their version of events, but also eliminates any reasonable doubt regarding the veracity of Zimmerman's version of events. The closest that they have come to this is the testimony of Rachel Jeantel, which really isn't even that close to being the quality of evidence that they need. This is why I am wondering where the conclusive evidence is and what the State actually has up its sleeve.
|
On July 02 2013 02:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:21 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 02:16 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 02:08 Kaitlin wrote:
I just heard HLN discussing the upcoming testimony of the lead detective who said he was pressured into a murder 2 charge, even though he felt they didn't have evidence sufficient for such a charge. The dumb blonde bitch mentioned that it could be used to entice a plea to manslaughter. That's fucking illegal as hell to threaten prosecution for a charge not supported by evidence. Unbelievable. I know it happens all the time, but it's one of the things entirely fucked up about how prosecutors operate. First degree, second degree murder and manslaughter are all degrees of similar crimes. If you kill someone and it can't be proven that it is self defense or an accident(with no negligence on your part), you can be charged with one of those three crimes. His self defense claim is really questionable, since he can't prove he didn't instigate the event by following Treyvon. Even in Florida. Florida puts the burden on the prosecutor even for self defense. Zimmerman doesnt have to prove anything. With self defense, Zimmerman has to prove he didn't instigate the event as well. The law does not allow people to pick fights and then shoot people in response. He also has to show that he had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, which also might be a challenge to prove. The "reasonable" threshold is the hardest part to avoid, since the jury get a lot of room to decide what is "reasonable".
No. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Z DID instigate it, if that is the approach to overcoming reasonable doubt. Z has to prove absolutely nothing. Evidence is sufficient for a self-defense instruction. Prosecution has to overcome it beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
On July 02 2013 02:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:21 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 02:16 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 02:08 Kaitlin wrote:
I just heard HLN discussing the upcoming testimony of the lead detective who said he was pressured into a murder 2 charge, even though he felt they didn't have evidence sufficient for such a charge. The dumb blonde bitch mentioned that it could be used to entice a plea to manslaughter. That's fucking illegal as hell to threaten prosecution for a charge not supported by evidence. Unbelievable. I know it happens all the time, but it's one of the things entirely fucked up about how prosecutors operate. First degree, second degree murder and manslaughter are all degrees of similar crimes. If you kill someone and it can't be proven that it is self defense or an accident(with no negligence on your part), you can be charged with one of those three crimes. His self defense claim is really questionable, since he can't prove he didn't instigate the event by following Treyvon. Even in Florida. Florida puts the burden on the prosecutor even for self defense. Zimmerman doesnt have to prove anything. With self defense, Zimmerman has to prove he didn't instigate the event as well. The law does not allow people to pick fights and then shoot people in response. He also has to show that he had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, which also might be a challenge to prove. The "reasonable" threshold is the hardest part to avoid, since the jury get a lot of room to decide what is "reasonable".
he doesnt have to prove jackshit.
|
On July 02 2013 02:31 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2013 02:21 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 02:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2013 01:57 xDaunt wrote:
I keep waiting for the State to put on something that even remotely resembles compelling evidence, but it just hasn't come yet. The takeaway from the admission of Zimmerman's statements so far is that they are entirely consistent with eyewitness testimony -- particularly the testimony of Good. With the inconsistencies in GZ's various accounts and the lack of reliability of eye witnesses (especially considering the conditions of the night in question), the door is definitely wide open for the prosecution to chip away at GZ's reasonable doubt. You have it ass backwards. The State has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is a good thing for Zimmerman. The existence of reasonable doubt means he walks. Pointing out inconsistencies in Zimmerman's statements (which appear very minor so far) doesn't really get the State anywhere. It's helpful to the extent that it undermines Zimmerman's credibility. However, it is no where near enough to secure a conviction, because the end result is that all it does is create more reasonable doubt. I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that the reasonable doubt GZ needs to be found not guilty is still vulnerable due to his inconsistent statements (See Breakdown on Pg 216), and the lack of reliability of eye witnesses to correctly identify someone. The defense seems to have been doing just fine without relying on Zimmerman's account so far.
Yeah, but they will likely be unable to prevent his previously recorded accounts from being entered into evidence. Considering the inconsistencies in the accounts, GZ would be all but convicting himself if he dared to take the stand.
|
On July 02 2013 02:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:31 nihlon wrote:On July 02 2013 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2013 02:21 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 02:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 02 2013 01:57 xDaunt wrote:
I keep waiting for the State to put on something that even remotely resembles compelling evidence, but it just hasn't come yet. The takeaway from the admission of Zimmerman's statements so far is that they are entirely consistent with eyewitness testimony -- particularly the testimony of Good. With the inconsistencies in GZ's various accounts and the lack of reliability of eye witnesses (especially considering the conditions of the night in question), the door is definitely wide open for the prosecution to chip away at GZ's reasonable doubt. You have it ass backwards. The State has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is a good thing for Zimmerman. The existence of reasonable doubt means he walks. Pointing out inconsistencies in Zimmerman's statements (which appear very minor so far) doesn't really get the State anywhere. It's helpful to the extent that it undermines Zimmerman's credibility. However, it is no where near enough to secure a conviction, because the end result is that all it does is create more reasonable doubt. I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that the reasonable doubt GZ needs to be found not guilty is still vulnerable due to his inconsistent statements (See Breakdown on Pg 216), and the lack of reliability of eye witnesses to correctly identify someone. The defense seems to have been doing just fine without relying on Zimmerman's account so far. Yeah, but they will likely be unable to prevent his previously recorded accounts from being entered into evidence. Considering the inconsistencies in the accounts, GZ would be all but convicting himself if he dared to take the stand.
I read that wrong...
|
On July 02 2013 02:34 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:30 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 02:21 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 02:16 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 02:08 Kaitlin wrote:
I just heard HLN discussing the upcoming testimony of the lead detective who said he was pressured into a murder 2 charge, even though he felt they didn't have evidence sufficient for such a charge. The dumb blonde bitch mentioned that it could be used to entice a plea to manslaughter. That's fucking illegal as hell to threaten prosecution for a charge not supported by evidence. Unbelievable. I know it happens all the time, but it's one of the things entirely fucked up about how prosecutors operate. First degree, second degree murder and manslaughter are all degrees of similar crimes. If you kill someone and it can't be proven that it is self defense or an accident(with no negligence on your part), you can be charged with one of those three crimes. His self defense claim is really questionable, since he can't prove he didn't instigate the event by following Treyvon. Even in Florida. Florida puts the burden on the prosecutor even for self defense. Zimmerman doesnt have to prove anything. With self defense, Zimmerman has to prove he didn't instigate the event as well. The law does not allow people to pick fights and then shoot people in response. He also has to show that he had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, which also might be a challenge to prove. The "reasonable" threshold is the hardest part to avoid, since the jury get a lot of room to decide what is "reasonable". he doesnt have to prove jackshit.
Exactly. Z doesn't have to prove anything at all, the defense doesn't have to "prove" self-defense. All they have to show is cast doubt on the prosecution's case. Unless the prosecution proves, PROVES, that Zimmerman started the altercation and acted intending to kill T, then Z is fine.
|
She just testified that he felt guilty because in his religion it's never ok to kill somebody. Another blow to the prosecution brought on by the prosecution. There goes any reading of regret or guilt by GZ to no longer mean he did wrong, legally.
edit: and his reaction to finding out he was dead. More damage to prosecution.
|
On July 02 2013 02:43 Kaitlin wrote:
She just testified that he felt guilty because in his religion it's never ok to kill somebody. Another blow to the prosecution brought on by the prosecution. There goes any reading of regret or guilt by GZ to no longer mean he did wrong, legally.
edit: and his reaction to finding out he was dead. More damage to prosecution.
Recognition of the wrongness of his acts can be turned against him if properly associated with his changing/inconsistent stories. Will the prosecution do this? Doubtful.
|
The physical evidence supports Z's version of events. The lack of wounds on T other than on his knuckles and one bullet hole, the autopsy report on T, Z's injuries on his face and back (pretty hard to get injuries on your back if you are the one on top), et cetera. And remember it's innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and there is way more than enough reasonable doubt so far. The State needs some bombshell evidence otherwise this trial could simply be dismissed.
|
On July 02 2013 02:34 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:30 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 02:21 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 02:16 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 02:08 Kaitlin wrote:
I just heard HLN discussing the upcoming testimony of the lead detective who said he was pressured into a murder 2 charge, even though he felt they didn't have evidence sufficient for such a charge. The dumb blonde bitch mentioned that it could be used to entice a plea to manslaughter. That's fucking illegal as hell to threaten prosecution for a charge not supported by evidence. Unbelievable. I know it happens all the time, but it's one of the things entirely fucked up about how prosecutors operate. First degree, second degree murder and manslaughter are all degrees of similar crimes. If you kill someone and it can't be proven that it is self defense or an accident(with no negligence on your part), you can be charged with one of those three crimes. His self defense claim is really questionable, since he can't prove he didn't instigate the event by following Treyvon. Even in Florida. Florida puts the burden on the prosecutor even for self defense. Zimmerman doesnt have to prove anything. With self defense, Zimmerman has to prove he didn't instigate the event as well. The law does not allow people to pick fights and then shoot people in response. He also has to show that he had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, which also might be a challenge to prove. The "reasonable" threshold is the hardest part to avoid, since the jury get a lot of room to decide what is "reasonable". he doesnt have to prove jackshit.
With all do respect dAPhREAk, I work in the legal field and self defense always has to be proven, even in this case. It may be easier in Florida, but when you shoot someone, you need to prove you had good cause to do so. The Florida law only removed the requirement to attempt to flee(or that all routes of flight be removed) before using deadly force. You still need to meet all the other burdens of self defense.
Also, if can be proven that Zimmerman instigated or could have avoided the event by following Trevyon after he was instructed not to do so by the police, self defense could be hard to sell a jury on. Even then, great bodily harm and death means that the jury must believe that Zimmerman would have been crippled or injured for life(which is the threshold for great bodily harm). Getting beat up or punched a few times does not normally justify the use of deadly force.
|
On July 02 2013 02:47 NEOtheONE wrote:
The physical evidence supports Z's version of events. The lack of wounds on T other than on his knuckles and one bullet hole, the autopsy report on T, Z's injuries on his face and back (pretty hard to get injuries on your back if you are the one on top), et cetera. And remember it's innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and there is way more than enough reasonable doubt so far. The State needs some bombshell evidence otherwise this trial could simply be dismissed.
A lot could of happened in a fight that is reasoned by Zimmerman's accounts to have lasted around 2m:40s And it's pretty clear Z hasn't shared all of what happened.
But the prosecution has to do it's job and so far it's only doing slightly better than Z's lawyer's opening joke.
|
On July 02 2013 02:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 02:30 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 02:21 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 02:16 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 02:08 Kaitlin wrote:
I just heard HLN discussing the upcoming testimony of the lead detective who said he was pressured into a murder 2 charge, even though he felt they didn't have evidence sufficient for such a charge. The dumb blonde bitch mentioned that it could be used to entice a plea to manslaughter. That's fucking illegal as hell to threaten prosecution for a charge not supported by evidence. Unbelievable. I know it happens all the time, but it's one of the things entirely fucked up about how prosecutors operate. First degree, second degree murder and manslaughter are all degrees of similar crimes. If you kill someone and it can't be proven that it is self defense or an accident(with no negligence on your part), you can be charged with one of those three crimes. His self defense claim is really questionable, since he can't prove he didn't instigate the event by following Treyvon. Even in Florida. Florida puts the burden on the prosecutor even for self defense. Zimmerman doesnt have to prove anything. With self defense, Zimmerman has to prove he didn't instigate the event as well. The law does not allow people to pick fights and then shoot people in response. He also has to show that he had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, which also might be a challenge to prove. The "reasonable" threshold is the hardest part to avoid, since the jury get a lot of room to decide what is "reasonable". he doesnt have to prove jackshit. With all do respect dAPhREAk, I work in the legal field and self defense always has to be proven, even in this case. It may be easier in Florida, but when you shoot someone, you need to prove you had good cause to do so. The Florida law only removed the requirement to attempt to flee(or that all routes of flight be removed) before using deadly force. Also, if can be proven that Zimmerman instigated or could have avoided the event by following Trevyon after he was instructed not to do so by the police, self defense could be hard to sell a jury on. Even then, great bodily harm and death means that the jury must believe that Zimmerman would have been crippled or injured for life(which is the threshold for great bodily harm). Getting beat up or punched a few times does not normally justify the use of deadly force.
If you work in the legal field, then you'd know to go look up Florida law (ie the jury instructions) regarding where the burdens of proof lie.
|
On July 02 2013 02:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 02:30 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 02:21 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 02:16 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 02:08 Kaitlin wrote:
I just heard HLN discussing the upcoming testimony of the lead detective who said he was pressured into a murder 2 charge, even though he felt they didn't have evidence sufficient for such a charge. The dumb blonde bitch mentioned that it could be used to entice a plea to manslaughter. That's fucking illegal as hell to threaten prosecution for a charge not supported by evidence. Unbelievable. I know it happens all the time, but it's one of the things entirely fucked up about how prosecutors operate. First degree, second degree murder and manslaughter are all degrees of similar crimes. If you kill someone and it can't be proven that it is self defense or an accident(with no negligence on your part), you can be charged with one of those three crimes. His self defense claim is really questionable, since he can't prove he didn't instigate the event by following Treyvon. Even in Florida. Florida puts the burden on the prosecutor even for self defense. Zimmerman doesnt have to prove anything. With self defense, Zimmerman has to prove he didn't instigate the event as well. The law does not allow people to pick fights and then shoot people in response. He also has to show that he had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, which also might be a challenge to prove. The "reasonable" threshold is the hardest part to avoid, since the jury get a lot of room to decide what is "reasonable". he doesnt have to prove jackshit. With all do respect dAPhREAk, I work in the legal field and self defense always has to be proven, even in this case. It may be easier in Florida, but when you shoot someone, you need to prove you had good cause to do so. The Florida law only removed the requirement to attempt to flee(or that all routes of flight be removed) before using deadly force. You still need to meet all the other burdens of self defense. Also, if can be proven that Zimmerman instigated or could have avoided the event by following Trevyon after he was instructed not to do so by the police, self defense could be hard to sell a jury on. Even then, great bodily harm and death means that the jury must believe that Zimmerman would have been crippled or injured for life(which is the threshold for great bodily harm). Getting beat up or punched a few times does not normally justify the use of deadly force.
This is a murder trial.
|
After following this trial loosely since the beginning I'm now pretty convinced there must be politics at work here. From the evidence they have shown so far this should never have reached a trial stage, this case should have been dismissed/closed nearly a year ago, once the forensic work was done.
Obviously it hasn't been, and if one keeps in mind the political situation around it, it's pretty clear why. Still I think this entire procedure by now is a colossal waste of time and money.
(Just fyi, I was on the "god damn another unnecessary gun crime" train of thought during the earlier stages of this thread)
|
On July 02 2013 02:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 02:30 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 02:21 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 02:16 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 02:08 Kaitlin wrote:
I just heard HLN discussing the upcoming testimony of the lead detective who said he was pressured into a murder 2 charge, even though he felt they didn't have evidence sufficient for such a charge. The dumb blonde bitch mentioned that it could be used to entice a plea to manslaughter. That's fucking illegal as hell to threaten prosecution for a charge not supported by evidence. Unbelievable. I know it happens all the time, but it's one of the things entirely fucked up about how prosecutors operate. First degree, second degree murder and manslaughter are all degrees of similar crimes. If you kill someone and it can't be proven that it is self defense or an accident(with no negligence on your part), you can be charged with one of those three crimes. His self defense claim is really questionable, since he can't prove he didn't instigate the event by following Treyvon. Even in Florida. Florida puts the burden on the prosecutor even for self defense. Zimmerman doesnt have to prove anything. With self defense, Zimmerman has to prove he didn't instigate the event as well. The law does not allow people to pick fights and then shoot people in response. He also has to show that he had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, which also might be a challenge to prove. The "reasonable" threshold is the hardest part to avoid, since the jury get a lot of room to decide what is "reasonable". he doesnt have to prove jackshit. With all do respect dAPhREAk, I work in the legal field and self defense always has to be proven, even in this case. It may be easier in Florida, but when you shoot someone, you need to prove you had good cause to do so. The Florida law only removed the requirement to attempt to flee(or that all routes of flight be removed) before using deadly force. You still need to meet all the other burdens of self defense. Also, if can be proven that Zimmerman instigated or could have avoided the event by following Trevyon after he was instructed not to do so by the police, self defense could be hard to sell a jury on. Even then, great bodily harm and death means that the jury must believe that Zimmerman would have been crippled or injured for life(which is the threshold for great bodily harm). Getting beat up or punched a few times does not normally justify the use of deadly force.
i'd be careful before you wave your legal penis around. there are three lawyers in this thread at least, and two of them are saying you are wrong. the burden is on the state.
We agree with this analysis. 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.
http://lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/montijo-v-state-61-so-3d-424-fl-ct-app-2011/
|
On July 02 2013 02:54 Tula wrote:
After following this trial loosely since the beginning I'm now pretty convinced there must be politics at work here. From the evidence they have shown so far this should never have reached a trial stage, this case should have been dismissed/closed nearly a year ago, once the forensic work was done.
Obviously it hasn't been, and if one keeps in mind the political situation around it, it's pretty clear why. Still I think this entire procedure by now is a colossal waste of time and money.
(Just fyi, I was on the "god damn another unnecessary gun crime" train of thought during the earlier stages of this thread)
For better or for worse, the performance of "justice" is a highly political facade in the United States. In other words, while we may do our best to divorce judicial proceedings from politics, there will always be crossover, and this case is a good example of that.
|
On July 02 2013 02:54 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:49 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 02:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 02:30 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 02:21 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 02:16 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 02:08 Kaitlin wrote:
I just heard HLN discussing the upcoming testimony of the lead detective who said he was pressured into a murder 2 charge, even though he felt they didn't have evidence sufficient for such a charge. The dumb blonde bitch mentioned that it could be used to entice a plea to manslaughter. That's fucking illegal as hell to threaten prosecution for a charge not supported by evidence. Unbelievable. I know it happens all the time, but it's one of the things entirely fucked up about how prosecutors operate. First degree, second degree murder and manslaughter are all degrees of similar crimes. If you kill someone and it can't be proven that it is self defense or an accident(with no negligence on your part), you can be charged with one of those three crimes. His self defense claim is really questionable, since he can't prove he didn't instigate the event by following Treyvon. Even in Florida. Florida puts the burden on the prosecutor even for self defense. Zimmerman doesnt have to prove anything. With self defense, Zimmerman has to prove he didn't instigate the event as well. The law does not allow people to pick fights and then shoot people in response. He also has to show that he had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, which also might be a challenge to prove. The "reasonable" threshold is the hardest part to avoid, since the jury get a lot of room to decide what is "reasonable". he doesnt have to prove jackshit. With all do respect dAPhREAk, I work in the legal field and self defense always has to be proven, even in this case. It may be easier in Florida, but when you shoot someone, you need to prove you had good cause to do so. The Florida law only removed the requirement to attempt to flee(or that all routes of flight be removed) before using deadly force. You still need to meet all the other burdens of self defense. Also, if can be proven that Zimmerman instigated or could have avoided the event by following Trevyon after he was instructed not to do so by the police, self defense could be hard to sell a jury on. Even then, great bodily harm and death means that the jury must believe that Zimmerman would have been crippled or injured for life(which is the threshold for great bodily harm). Getting beat up or punched a few times does not normally justify the use of deadly force. i'd be careful before you wave your legal penis around. there are three lawyers in this thread at least, and two of them are saying you are wrong. the burden is on the state. Show nested quote +We agree with this analysis. 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. http://lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/montijo-v-state-61-so-3d-424-fl-ct-app-2011/
That ends that discussion.
|
On July 02 2013 02:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:49 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 02:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 02:30 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 02:21 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 02 2013 02:16 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 02:08 Kaitlin wrote:
I just heard HLN discussing the upcoming testimony of the lead detective who said he was pressured into a murder 2 charge, even though he felt they didn't have evidence sufficient for such a charge. The dumb blonde bitch mentioned that it could be used to entice a plea to manslaughter. That's fucking illegal as hell to threaten prosecution for a charge not supported by evidence. Unbelievable. I know it happens all the time, but it's one of the things entirely fucked up about how prosecutors operate. First degree, second degree murder and manslaughter are all degrees of similar crimes. If you kill someone and it can't be proven that it is self defense or an accident(with no negligence on your part), you can be charged with one of those three crimes. His self defense claim is really questionable, since he can't prove he didn't instigate the event by following Treyvon. Even in Florida. Florida puts the burden on the prosecutor even for self defense. Zimmerman doesnt have to prove anything. With self defense, Zimmerman has to prove he didn't instigate the event as well. The law does not allow people to pick fights and then shoot people in response. He also has to show that he had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, which also might be a challenge to prove. The "reasonable" threshold is the hardest part to avoid, since the jury get a lot of room to decide what is "reasonable". he doesnt have to prove jackshit. With all do respect dAPhREAk, I work in the legal field and self defense always has to be proven, even in this case. It may be easier in Florida, but when you shoot someone, you need to prove you had good cause to do so. The Florida law only removed the requirement to attempt to flee(or that all routes of flight be removed) before using deadly force. Also, if can be proven that Zimmerman instigated or could have avoided the event by following Trevyon after he was instructed not to do so by the police, self defense could be hard to sell a jury on. Even then, great bodily harm and death means that the jury must believe that Zimmerman would have been crippled or injured for life(which is the threshold for great bodily harm). Getting beat up or punched a few times does not normally justify the use of deadly force. If you work in the legal field, then you'd know to go look up Florida law (ie the jury instructions) regarding where the burdens of proof lie.
I do understand the Florida law and what the requirements are and I am saying it is possible to prove a manslaughter case. The burden of proof is always on prosecution, but it is an easier case for them to prove for manslaughter because they can attack the self defense claim. If they remove that, they have a manslaughter case.
It is a much easier case to make than murder in the second.
|
actually, there may only be two lawyers in this thread because it appears plansix only works in the legal field, not that he is an actual lawyer like xDaunt and myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
