|
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 03 2013 04:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 04:43 xDaunt wrote:On July 03 2013 04:40 Kaitlin wrote:On July 03 2013 04:36 Defacer wrote:On July 03 2013 04:24 Kaitlin wrote:On July 03 2013 04:22 Defacer wrote:On July 03 2013 04:14 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote:
Found guilty or not, the results of this case will not be good. It all depends on how the media reacts. If they would pull their head out of their ass and just report the facts of the case, it would definitely temper the passion on both sides of the argument and mitigate any over-reaction to the results. Now that I said that, they'll probably sensationalize the fuck out of it. I can see the CNN TICKER now. "Zimmerman gets away will killing 17 year old kid!" Riots are another event for the media to cover and make money from. Not to mention, they support the agenda of more spending, more cops on the street, etc. Every aspect of their agenda benefits from misleading and ultimately generating public outrage. I think it has less to do with an actual 'agenda' (with the exception of Fox News), but more a by-product of the rise of cable news, and the increasing demand for more and more sensational content in order to compete in the 24-hour news cycle. That, and news organizations, like any organizations, drink their own Kool-Aid, hate admitting they were wrong and are vulnerable to confirmation bias. They either consciously or subconsciously looking for and reporting the facts that coalesce with their established position. So, to you, Fox News is the only one with an agenda, despite everything you've seen in the coverage of this case ? I haven't been watching Fox as it relates to this trial, but I haven't read any complaints from this thread about their coverage. From what I have seen, Fox's coverage of the trial has sucked balls as well. Is there a single network with good coverage? I looked last night and they all seem to be pretty crap.
That's the issue, it's coverage and opinions of what is going on. It also doesn't help that most likely 99% of the time people are paid/edited to appear as if they only bring up certain things or exciting things. But you gotta watch it live to really see what's going on in the trial.
|
Doesn't he have a concealed weapons permit? Don't you take courses teaching you the basics of these laws anyway, when doing your gun safety requirements for the permit?
*edit* I'm mostly ignorant on gun permit laws, this is the impression I get from reading the comments section of the legalinsurrection recaps.
|
To be honest, regardless of what instructions they get, I don't think the jury will unhear the "he's not a liar" line that the defense ended with yesterday.
|
Sounds like the judge, provided O'mara, doesn't find some convincing case law, has already made up her mind to allow the entry of the the relevant courses and work.
|
On July 03 2013 04:40 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 04:36 Defacer wrote:On July 03 2013 04:24 Kaitlin wrote:On July 03 2013 04:22 Defacer wrote:On July 03 2013 04:14 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote:
Found guilty or not, the results of this case will not be good. It all depends on how the media reacts. If they would pull their head out of their ass and just report the facts of the case, it would definitely temper the passion on both sides of the argument and mitigate any over-reaction to the results. Now that I said that, they'll probably sensationalize the fuck out of it. I can see the CNN TICKER now. "Zimmerman gets away will killing 17 year old kid!" Riots are another event for the media to cover and make money from. Not to mention, they support the agenda of more spending, more cops on the street, etc. Every aspect of their agenda benefits from misleading and ultimately generating public outrage. I think it has less to do with an actual 'agenda' (with the exception of Fox News), but more a by-product of the rise of cable news, and the increasing demand for more and more sensational content in order to compete in the 24-hour news cycle. That, and news organizations, like any organizations, drink their own Kool-Aid, hate admitting they were wrong and are vulnerable to confirmation bias. They either consciously or subconsciously looking for and reporting the facts that coalesce with their established position. So, to you, Fox News is the only one with an agenda, despite everything you've seen in the coverage of this case ? I haven't been watching Fox as it relates to this trial, but I haven't read any complaints from this thread about their coverage.
I suppose it depends on if you as a person make a distinction between political agenda and economical agenda. There are some news organizations that promote a political agenda, on either side of the spectrum, and then there are news organizations that report sensationalist news in order to bring in higher ratings, regardless of the facts. It is also possible to have a little of both. But I think when people say "agenda" they are talking about political motives, of which Fox News is famous. I would hardly call reporting sensationalist news to generate higher ratings and more money an "agenda," that's just good business by preying on the intelligence and attention span of the average American. If people would call them out on their bullshit or not watch their news, they might start reporting facts.
|
This prosecution's case seems to be trying to poke holes in the defense's theory of the case, rather than the other way around, which is what is actually required. Defense theory doesn't hold up, therefore he's guilty.
|
On July 03 2013 04:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 04:40 Kaitlin wrote:On July 03 2013 04:36 Defacer wrote:On July 03 2013 04:24 Kaitlin wrote:On July 03 2013 04:22 Defacer wrote:On July 03 2013 04:14 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote:
Found guilty or not, the results of this case will not be good. It all depends on how the media reacts. If they would pull their head out of their ass and just report the facts of the case, it would definitely temper the passion on both sides of the argument and mitigate any over-reaction to the results. Now that I said that, they'll probably sensationalize the fuck out of it. I can see the CNN TICKER now. "Zimmerman gets away will killing 17 year old kid!" Riots are another event for the media to cover and make money from. Not to mention, they support the agenda of more spending, more cops on the street, etc. Every aspect of their agenda benefits from misleading and ultimately generating public outrage. I think it has less to do with an actual 'agenda' (with the exception of Fox News), but more a by-product of the rise of cable news, and the increasing demand for more and more sensational content in order to compete in the 24-hour news cycle. That, and news organizations, like any organizations, drink their own Kool-Aid, hate admitting they were wrong and are vulnerable to confirmation bias. They either consciously or subconsciously looking for and reporting the facts that coalesce with their established position. So, to you, Fox News is the only one with an agenda, despite everything you've seen in the coverage of this case ? I haven't been watching Fox as it relates to this trial, but I haven't read any complaints from this thread about their coverage. From what I have seen, Fox's coverage of the trial has sucked balls as well.
I've been watching the trial, but I haven't been watching much of the "analysis" by any of the news networks. However, I did watch/read a lot about this when the story first broke. NBC and MSNBC clearly had an agenda to paint Zimmerman as a vigilante and racist. NBC with their unethical 9-1-1 phone call edit, and MSNBC with Al Sharpton being Al Charlatan.
|
On July 03 2013 04:53 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 04:40 Kaitlin wrote:On July 03 2013 04:36 Defacer wrote:On July 03 2013 04:24 Kaitlin wrote:On July 03 2013 04:22 Defacer wrote:On July 03 2013 04:14 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote:
Found guilty or not, the results of this case will not be good. It all depends on how the media reacts. If they would pull their head out of their ass and just report the facts of the case, it would definitely temper the passion on both sides of the argument and mitigate any over-reaction to the results. Now that I said that, they'll probably sensationalize the fuck out of it. I can see the CNN TICKER now. "Zimmerman gets away will killing 17 year old kid!" Riots are another event for the media to cover and make money from. Not to mention, they support the agenda of more spending, more cops on the street, etc. Every aspect of their agenda benefits from misleading and ultimately generating public outrage. I think it has less to do with an actual 'agenda' (with the exception of Fox News), but more a by-product of the rise of cable news, and the increasing demand for more and more sensational content in order to compete in the 24-hour news cycle. That, and news organizations, like any organizations, drink their own Kool-Aid, hate admitting they were wrong and are vulnerable to confirmation bias. They either consciously or subconsciously looking for and reporting the facts that coalesce with their established position. So, to you, Fox News is the only one with an agenda, despite everything you've seen in the coverage of this case ? I haven't been watching Fox as it relates to this trial, but I haven't read any complaints from this thread about their coverage. I suppose it depends on if you as a person make a distinction between political agenda and economical agenda. There are some news organizations that promote a political agenda, on either side of the spectrum, and then there are news organizations that report sensationalist news in order to bring in higher ratings, regardless of the facts. It is also possible to have a little of both. But I think when people say "agenda" they are talking about political motives, of which Fox News is famous. I would hardly call reporting sensationalist news to generate higher ratings and more money an "agenda," that's just good business by preying on the intelligence and attention span of the average American. If people would call them out on their bullshit or not watch their news, they might start reporting facts.
Well, Fox News is "famous" based on what the other media outlets say about them, when these other media outlets are promoting their own political agenda.
|
On July 03 2013 04:40 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 04:36 Defacer wrote:On July 03 2013 04:24 Kaitlin wrote:On July 03 2013 04:22 Defacer wrote:On July 03 2013 04:14 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote:
Found guilty or not, the results of this case will not be good. It all depends on how the media reacts. If they would pull their head out of their ass and just report the facts of the case, it would definitely temper the passion on both sides of the argument and mitigate any over-reaction to the results. Now that I said that, they'll probably sensationalize the fuck out of it. I can see the CNN TICKER now. "Zimmerman gets away will killing 17 year old kid!" Riots are another event for the media to cover and make money from. Not to mention, they support the agenda of more spending, more cops on the street, etc. Every aspect of their agenda benefits from misleading and ultimately generating public outrage. I think it has less to do with an actual 'agenda' (with the exception of Fox News), but more a by-product of the rise of cable news, and the increasing demand for more and more sensational content in order to compete in the 24-hour news cycle. That, and news organizations, like any organizations, drink their own Kool-Aid, hate admitting they were wrong and are vulnerable to confirmation bias. They either consciously or subconsciously looking for and reporting the facts that coalesce with their established position. So, to you, Fox News is the only one with an agenda, despite everything you've seen in the coverage of this case ? I haven't been watching Fox as it relates to this trial, but I haven't read any complaints from this thread about their coverage.
Not based on this case, but based on actual accounts from Fox employees about how all programs are issued a talking points memo from Ayers and up high on what issues or messages to cover for the day. They go as far as to ban certain guests or pundits from even being mentioned on-air and even dictate how certain news organizations should be referred to. For example, programs are only allowed to refer to Politico as 'left-wing website Politico.'
Other news organizations may do the same, but I haven't read articles related to that kind of centralized message control.
|
On July 03 2013 04:48 mastergriggy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 04:44 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2013 04:43 xDaunt wrote:On July 03 2013 04:40 Kaitlin wrote:On July 03 2013 04:36 Defacer wrote:On July 03 2013 04:24 Kaitlin wrote:On July 03 2013 04:22 Defacer wrote:On July 03 2013 04:14 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote:
Found guilty or not, the results of this case will not be good. It all depends on how the media reacts. If they would pull their head out of their ass and just report the facts of the case, it would definitely temper the passion on both sides of the argument and mitigate any over-reaction to the results. Now that I said that, they'll probably sensationalize the fuck out of it. I can see the CNN TICKER now. "Zimmerman gets away will killing 17 year old kid!" Riots are another event for the media to cover and make money from. Not to mention, they support the agenda of more spending, more cops on the street, etc. Every aspect of their agenda benefits from misleading and ultimately generating public outrage. I think it has less to do with an actual 'agenda' (with the exception of Fox News), but more a by-product of the rise of cable news, and the increasing demand for more and more sensational content in order to compete in the 24-hour news cycle. That, and news organizations, like any organizations, drink their own Kool-Aid, hate admitting they were wrong and are vulnerable to confirmation bias. They either consciously or subconsciously looking for and reporting the facts that coalesce with their established position. So, to you, Fox News is the only one with an agenda, despite everything you've seen in the coverage of this case ? I haven't been watching Fox as it relates to this trial, but I haven't read any complaints from this thread about their coverage. From what I have seen, Fox's coverage of the trial has sucked balls as well. Is there a single network with good coverage? I looked last night and they all seem to be pretty crap. That's the issue, it's coverage and opinions of what is going on. It also doesn't help that most likely 99% of the time people are paid/edited to appear as if they only bring up certain things or exciting things. But you gotta watch it live to really see what's going on in the trial.
I was hoping someone knew of coverage that was at least reasonable. One news outlet carrying the torch for good courtroom coverage. I guess TL has to hold that one up for a while.
|
On July 03 2013 04:55 Kaitlin wrote:
This prosecution's case seems to be trying to poke holes in the defense's theory of the case, rather than the other way around, which is what is actually required. Defense theory doesn't hold up, therefore he's guilty.
You're innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. They have to poke holes in the defense's theory. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove his innocence, the prosecution has to prove his guilt.
|
On July 03 2013 05:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 04:48 mastergriggy wrote:On July 03 2013 04:44 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2013 04:43 xDaunt wrote:On July 03 2013 04:40 Kaitlin wrote:On July 03 2013 04:36 Defacer wrote:On July 03 2013 04:24 Kaitlin wrote:On July 03 2013 04:22 Defacer wrote:On July 03 2013 04:14 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote:
Found guilty or not, the results of this case will not be good. It all depends on how the media reacts. If they would pull their head out of their ass and just report the facts of the case, it would definitely temper the passion on both sides of the argument and mitigate any over-reaction to the results. Now that I said that, they'll probably sensationalize the fuck out of it. I can see the CNN TICKER now. "Zimmerman gets away will killing 17 year old kid!" Riots are another event for the media to cover and make money from. Not to mention, they support the agenda of more spending, more cops on the street, etc. Every aspect of their agenda benefits from misleading and ultimately generating public outrage. I think it has less to do with an actual 'agenda' (with the exception of Fox News), but more a by-product of the rise of cable news, and the increasing demand for more and more sensational content in order to compete in the 24-hour news cycle. That, and news organizations, like any organizations, drink their own Kool-Aid, hate admitting they were wrong and are vulnerable to confirmation bias. They either consciously or subconsciously looking for and reporting the facts that coalesce with their established position. So, to you, Fox News is the only one with an agenda, despite everything you've seen in the coverage of this case ? I haven't been watching Fox as it relates to this trial, but I haven't read any complaints from this thread about their coverage. From what I have seen, Fox's coverage of the trial has sucked balls as well. Is there a single network with good coverage? I looked last night and they all seem to be pretty crap. That's the issue, it's coverage and opinions of what is going on. It also doesn't help that most likely 99% of the time people are paid/edited to appear as if they only bring up certain things or exciting things. But you gotta watch it live to really see what's going on in the trial. I was hoping someone knew of coverage that was at least reasonable. One news outlet carrying the torch for good courtroom coverage. I guess TL has to hold that one up for a while.
You could just watch the trial by itself, which is what I do because I don't care much about what any media outlet has to say, whether it's FOX or CNN or whatever.
Here's one: http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbcnews.com/52117880
|
On July 03 2013 04:55 Kaitlin wrote:
This prosecution's case seems to be trying to poke holes in the defense's theory of the case, rather than the other way around, which is what is actually required. Defense theory doesn't hold up, therefore he's guilty.
In the U.S. it's innocent until proven guilty without a reasonable doubt. Since you're so active in this thread I only assumed you had a reasonable amount of knowledge about basic personal civil laws. It is the burden of the prosecutor to prove guild, not for the defense to prove innocence. The jury instructions include that if they have doubt it was self defense they must rule not guilty.
|
On July 03 2013 05:09 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 04:55 Kaitlin wrote:
This prosecution's case seems to be trying to poke holes in the defense's theory of the case, rather than the other way around, which is what is actually required. Defense theory doesn't hold up, therefore he's guilty. You're innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. They have to poke holes in the defense's theory. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove his innocence, the prosecution has to prove his guilt.
On July 03 2013 05:12 las91 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 04:55 Kaitlin wrote:
This prosecution's case seems to be trying to poke holes in the defense's theory of the case, rather than the other way around, which is what is actually required. Defense theory doesn't hold up, therefore he's guilty. In the U.S. it's innocent until proven guilty without a reasonable doubt. Since you're so active in this thread I only assumed you had a reasonable amount of knowledge about basic personal civil laws. It is the burden of the prosecutor to prove guild, not for the defense to prove innocence. The jury instructions include that if they have doubt it was self defense they must rule not guilty.
Come no, don't jump into the middle of a discussion. We all know that. He means that they are attempting to poke holes in the self defense argument, which is what this case hinges on. Zimmerman doesn't deny shooting Treyvon. Try to look for some context in the statement, rather that just shooting off a response.
|
On July 03 2013 04:57 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 04:53 ZasZ. wrote:On July 03 2013 04:40 Kaitlin wrote:On July 03 2013 04:36 Defacer wrote:On July 03 2013 04:24 Kaitlin wrote:On July 03 2013 04:22 Defacer wrote:On July 03 2013 04:14 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote:
Found guilty or not, the results of this case will not be good. It all depends on how the media reacts. If they would pull their head out of their ass and just report the facts of the case, it would definitely temper the passion on both sides of the argument and mitigate any over-reaction to the results. Now that I said that, they'll probably sensationalize the fuck out of it. I can see the CNN TICKER now. "Zimmerman gets away will killing 17 year old kid!" Riots are another event for the media to cover and make money from. Not to mention, they support the agenda of more spending, more cops on the street, etc. Every aspect of their agenda benefits from misleading and ultimately generating public outrage. I think it has less to do with an actual 'agenda' (with the exception of Fox News), but more a by-product of the rise of cable news, and the increasing demand for more and more sensational content in order to compete in the 24-hour news cycle. That, and news organizations, like any organizations, drink their own Kool-Aid, hate admitting they were wrong and are vulnerable to confirmation bias. They either consciously or subconsciously looking for and reporting the facts that coalesce with their established position. So, to you, Fox News is the only one with an agenda, despite everything you've seen in the coverage of this case ? I haven't been watching Fox as it relates to this trial, but I haven't read any complaints from this thread about their coverage. I suppose it depends on if you as a person make a distinction between political agenda and economical agenda. There are some news organizations that promote a political agenda, on either side of the spectrum, and then there are news organizations that report sensationalist news in order to bring in higher ratings, regardless of the facts. It is also possible to have a little of both. But I think when people say "agenda" they are talking about political motives, of which Fox News is famous. I would hardly call reporting sensationalist news to generate higher ratings and more money an "agenda," that's just good business by preying on the intelligence and attention span of the average American. If people would call them out on their bullshit or not watch their news, they might start reporting facts. Well, Fox News is "famous" based on what the other media outlets say about them, when these other media outlets are promoting their own political agenda.
Fox News may be famous for it because of other media outlets, but I only need watch a few different programs on it for a few minutes to determine for myself that by and large it is promoting a right-wing agenda. There are others as well, for both sides, so I'm not sure why you are fixating on this, especially since it is off-topic.
My original point is that the word agenda has a political connotation to it, but people seem to be talking about reporting sensationalist news as an "agenda." There's no agenda behind it, that's just good business given how inept the average American is at processing real news.
|
On July 03 2013 05:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 05:09 Klondikebar wrote:On July 03 2013 04:55 Kaitlin wrote:
This prosecution's case seems to be trying to poke holes in the defense's theory of the case, rather than the other way around, which is what is actually required. Defense theory doesn't hold up, therefore he's guilty. You're innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. They have to poke holes in the defense's theory. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove his innocence, the prosecution has to prove his guilt. Come no, don't jump into the middle of a discussion. We all know that. He means that they are attempting to poke holes in the self defense argument, which is what this case hinges on. Zimmerman doesn't deny shooting Treyvon.
That didn't appear to be the middle of a discussion. It was a post that didn't quote anything and wasn't quoted further down at all.
And also I'm aware of what he's saying. He's saying the process is backwards. I am saying it's not and that's exactly how it should be.
|
On July 03 2013 05:15 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 05:12 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2013 05:09 Klondikebar wrote:On July 03 2013 04:55 Kaitlin wrote:
This prosecution's case seems to be trying to poke holes in the defense's theory of the case, rather than the other way around, which is what is actually required. Defense theory doesn't hold up, therefore he's guilty. You're innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. They have to poke holes in the defense's theory. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove his innocence, the prosecution has to prove his guilt. Come no, don't jump into the middle of a discussion. We all know that. He means that they are attempting to poke holes in the self defense argument, which is what this case hinges on. Zimmerman doesn't deny shooting Treyvon. That didn't appear to be the middle of a discussion. It was a post that didn't quote anything and wasn't quoted further down at all. And also I'm aware of what he's saying. He's saying the process is backwards. I am saying it's not and that's exactly how it should be.
The discussion has been going to for pages about the self defense claim. It is the whole case. If you kill someone by shooting them, admit it and don't have a self defense claim, there is nothing to prove. You have admitted to committing a crime. That is why the prosecution has been poking wholes in the defenses case of self defense. It is the only part they need to "prove".
|
On July 03 2013 05:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 05:09 Klondikebar wrote:On July 03 2013 04:55 Kaitlin wrote:
This prosecution's case seems to be trying to poke holes in the defense's theory of the case, rather than the other way around, which is what is actually required. Defense theory doesn't hold up, therefore he's guilty. You're innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. They have to poke holes in the defense's theory. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove his innocence, the prosecution has to prove his guilt. Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 05:12 las91 wrote:On July 03 2013 04:55 Kaitlin wrote:
This prosecution's case seems to be trying to poke holes in the defense's theory of the case, rather than the other way around, which is what is actually required. Defense theory doesn't hold up, therefore he's guilty. In the U.S. it's innocent until proven guilty without a reasonable doubt. Since you're so active in this thread I only assumed you had a reasonable amount of knowledge about basic personal civil laws. It is the burden of the prosecutor to prove guild, not for the defense to prove innocence. The jury instructions include that if they have doubt it was self defense they must rule not guilty. Come no, don't jump into the middle of a discussion. We all know that. He means that they are attempting to poke holes in the self defense argument, which is what this case hinges on. Zimmerman doesn't deny shooting Treyvon. Try to look for some context in the statement, rather that just shooting off a response.
I've been watching this thread and the trial for a week, I fully understand the context. The defense only has to show that it was likely self defense. The prosecution has to prove without a reasonable doubt that it wasn't.
If you read Kaitlin's statement it reads "the prosecution's case seems to be trying to poke holes in the defense's theory of the case"; "rather than the other way around" implies that the defense needs to poke holes in the prosecution's theory of the case, which is simply not true in any way whatsoever. All the defense has to do is construct a plausible self-defense scenario that gives reasonable doubt, since if the jury has reasonable doubt about it being self defense they are INSTRUCTED TO VOTE NOT GUILTY. They have to be ABSOLUTELY sure it was not self-defense.
EDIT: Added last sentence.
|
The state must discredit the defendant as part of its case. However, discrediting the defendant can't be the entire case. Thus far, the state's case has been the latter (to the extent that the state has even succeeded in discrediting Zimmerman), which simply isn't good enough to get a conviction.
|
On July 03 2013 05:20 las91 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 05:12 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2013 05:09 Klondikebar wrote:On July 03 2013 04:55 Kaitlin wrote:
This prosecution's case seems to be trying to poke holes in the defense's theory of the case, rather than the other way around, which is what is actually required. Defense theory doesn't hold up, therefore he's guilty. You're innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. They have to poke holes in the defense's theory. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove his innocence, the prosecution has to prove his guilt. On July 03 2013 05:12 las91 wrote:On July 03 2013 04:55 Kaitlin wrote:
This prosecution's case seems to be trying to poke holes in the defense's theory of the case, rather than the other way around, which is what is actually required. Defense theory doesn't hold up, therefore he's guilty. In the U.S. it's innocent until proven guilty without a reasonable doubt. Since you're so active in this thread I only assumed you had a reasonable amount of knowledge about basic personal civil laws. It is the burden of the prosecutor to prove guild, not for the defense to prove innocence. The jury instructions include that if they have doubt it was self defense they must rule not guilty. Come no, don't jump into the middle of a discussion. We all know that. He means that they are attempting to poke holes in the self defense argument, which is what this case hinges on. Zimmerman doesn't deny shooting Treyvon. Try to look for some context in the statement, rather that just shooting off a response. I've been watching this thread and the trial for a week, I fully understand the context. The defense only has to show that it was likely self defense. The prosecution has to prove without a reasonable doubt that it wasn't. If you read Kaitlin's statement it reads "the prosecution's case seems to be trying to poke holes in the defense's theory of the case"; "rather than the other way around" implies that the defense needs to poke holes in the prosecution's theory of the case, which is simply not true in any way whatsoever. All the defense has to do is construct a plausible self-defense scenario that gives reasonable doubt.
We get all get it, including Kaitlin. Just because his post wasn't perfectly worded doesn't mean you need to jump into the who "gotta posting style". I have read his comments from the thread and he knows what is going on in the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
