|
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 14 2013 07:55 Velocirapture wrote:
Just out of curiosity, as a tangent during downtime, how is it possible to prove a shooting isn't in self defense when a victim is killed in one shot to the front and there are no witnesses or records of the event. Giving the prosecution the burden of proving a negative seems like such an easy advantage I don't know why self defense isn't claimed in literally every case.
Note: I am not saying I think Zimmerman is guilty, just doing the mental exercise.
Innocent until proven guilty exists for a reason. That reason is because the alternative is quite dangerous.
Also, most murder cases are pretty open-and-shut. There is often some very usable evidence or the police are smart enough to squeeze a confession out of people.
|
Jurors have ordered dinner, so they will be deliberating for a while yet tonight. That's a good sign for the possibility of reaching a decision tonight, albeit after several more hours.
|
On July 14 2013 07:57 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 07:55 Velocirapture wrote:
Just out of curiosity, as a tangent during downtime, how is it possible to prove a shooting isn't in self defense when a victim is killed in one shot to the front and there are no witnesses or records of the event. Giving the prosecution the burden of proving a negative seems like such an easy advantage I don't know why self defense isn't claimed in literally every case.
Note: I am not saying I think Zimmerman is guilty, just doing the mental exercise. if the defendant keeps his mouth shut and the forensics dont tell a story, then self defense wins. self defense is not claimed in every case because most criminals are dipshits and dont plan out shit that goes down.
If Zimmerman didn't give 3 statements this trial would have never occurred.
|
On July 14 2013 07:55 Velocirapture wrote:
Just out of curiosity, as a tangent during downtime, how is it possible to prove a shooting isn't in self defense when a victim is killed in one shot to the front and there are no witnesses or records of the event. Giving the prosecution the burden of proving a negative seems like such an easy advantage I don't know why self defense isn't claimed in literally every case.
Note: I am not saying I think Zimmerman is guilty, just doing the mental exercise.
Well usually there would be some witnesses. Also, you use forensics. If its determined that the bullet was fired from a far distance, then self-defense may not apply, but if it was fired from a close distance, then self-defense can apply. Also, you can see if there were any bodily injuries to the person who claims self-defense.
It is tricky but not totally impossible.
|
With the instructions made incredibly clear and spoon-fed to the jury in more ways than one. I dont possibly see how they can find George guilty of manslaughter. The fact alone that they are taking a long time is concerning. Or maybe theyre just going through the motions.
|
Given how many TLers are paying attention, we should have put this stream on the sidebar, lol
|
On July 14 2013 08:02 Shady Sands wrote:
Given how many TLers are paying attention, we should have put this stream on the sidebar, lol
probably has more views than WCS AM.
|
On July 14 2013 08:04 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 08:02 Shady Sands wrote:
Given how many TLers are paying attention, we should have put this stream on the sidebar, lol probably has more views than WCS AM.
So did the Eagles stream during that MLG. By a huge margin.
|
U guys sweating a little bit? Could it be the jury agrees that manslaughter is deserved? Things are taking an interesting turn anyway.
|
On July 14 2013 07:55 Velocirapture wrote:
Just out of curiosity, as a tangent during downtime, how is it possible to prove a shooting isn't in self defense when a victim is killed in one shot to the front and there are no witnesses or records of the event. Giving the prosecution the burden of proving a negative seems like such an easy advantage I don't know why self defense isn't claimed in literally every case.
Note: I am not saying I think Zimmerman is guilty, just doing the mental exercise.
As has been said before, Guilt needs to be proven or things can get very messy if we just throw every in jail that we suspect of a crime but cant prove for sure.
That said there is always evidence. The bullet wound(s) give away a big story. In this case for example they proved that Trayvons shirt was several inches from his body at the time he was shot. It also showed that the shot was at a 90 degree angle. This only makes sense if Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman at the time he was shot. Which is further confirmed by an eyewitness.
|
On July 14 2013 08:06 antelope591 wrote:
U guys sweating a little bit? Could it be the jury agrees that manslaughter is deserved? Things are taking an interesting turn anyway.
Nope. From what I see I am very confident the Jury is basing their verdict on the evidence and the law. They will find him not guilty as they should.
|
On July 14 2013 08:06 antelope591 wrote:
U guys sweating a little bit? Could it be the jury agrees that manslaughter is deserved? Things are taking an interesting turn anyway.
Just from reading into the question, it's very good for the defense.
|
My guess is that some jurors insist that Z must be punished for killing someone, even in self defense.
|
I'm just curious a bit, why is this trial a big deal... at all?
I understand that it could potentially be racially charged, but there are a lot of murders that go on in the US, and this is absolutely nothing special or significant.
Why do people care? Just love drama?
|
On July 14 2013 08:12 Deflective wrote:
I'm just curious a bit, why is this trial a big deal... at all?
I understand that it could potentially be racially charged, but there are a lot of murders that go on in the US, and this is absolutely nothing special or significant.
Why do people care? Just love drama?
media made it a big deal. if media stayed out of it, nobody would give a shit.
|
On July 14 2013 08:12 Deflective wrote:
I'm just curious a bit, why is this trial a big deal... at all?
I understand that it could potentially be racially charged, but there are a lot of murders that go on in the US, and this is absolutely nothing special or significant.
Why do people care? Just love drama?
Black people seem to take offense when a black teenager is walking home from the candy store, is shot dead, the killer tells the cops he did it, and the cops don't arrest him.
|
On July 14 2013 08:13 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 08:12 Deflective wrote:
I'm just curious a bit, why is this trial a big deal... at all?
I understand that it could potentially be racially charged, but there are a lot of murders that go on in the US, and this is absolutely nothing special or significant.
Why do people care? Just love drama? media made it a big deal. if media stayed out of it, nobody would give a shit.
If it wasent for the media Zimmerman would have never been arrested
|
On July 14 2013 08:12 Deflective wrote:
I'm just curious a bit, why is this trial a big deal... at all?
I understand that it could potentially be racially charged, but there are a lot of murders that go on in the US, and this is absolutely nothing special or significant.
Why do people care? Just love drama?
Why do some people try and go to every MLB ballpark in the US? The answer is the same. They care because they want to, with a side helping of media focus.
On July 14 2013 08:14 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 08:12 Deflective wrote:
I'm just curious a bit, why is this trial a big deal... at all?
I understand that it could potentially be racially charged, but there are a lot of murders that go on in the US, and this is absolutely nothing special or significant.
Why do people care? Just love drama? Black people seem to take offense when a black teenager is walking home from the candy store, is shot dead, the killer tells the cops he did it, and the cops don't arrest him.
There's a modifier missing here, unless you are an unabashed racist.
|
On July 14 2013 08:15 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +Black people seem to take offense when a black teenager is walking home from the candy store, is shot dead, the killer tells the cops he did it, and the cops don't arrest him. There's a modifier missing here, unless you are an unabashed racist.
I'm not sure what's racist about what I said or what modifier is missing. The question was why was this case a big deal, and I pointed out why it became a big deal.
|
On July 14 2013 08:08 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 07:55 Velocirapture wrote:
Just out of curiosity, as a tangent during downtime, how is it possible to prove a shooting isn't in self defense when a victim is killed in one shot to the front and there are no witnesses or records of the event. Giving the prosecution the burden of proving a negative seems like such an easy advantage I don't know why self defense isn't claimed in literally every case.
Note: I am not saying I think Zimmerman is guilty, just doing the mental exercise. As has been said before, Guilt needs to be proven or things can get very messy if we just throw every in jail that we suspect of a crime but cant prove for sure. That said there is always evidence. The bullet wound(s) give away a big story. In this case for example they proved that Trayvons shirt was several inches from his body at the time he was shot. It also showed that the shot was at a 90 degree angle. This only makes sense if Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman at the time he was shot. Which is further confirmed by an eyewitness.
Like i said, Im not saying he is guilty. Im basically saying that forensics seems largely inconclusive in this matter barring some very extreme circumstances. If the gun shot had come when they were standing would self defense be invalid? If the shot had been in the head would the self defense claim be invalid? Since the answer to these questions is no, I am simply asking what possible piece forensic evidence apart from witnesses or records excludes self defense since I can't think of one. While I agree that "innocent until proven guilty" is necessary, it would be disconcerting if murder only requires the consideration of 3 or 4 variables to get away with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
