• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

George Zimmerman

RJKarl said:
"Then, on top of that, you keep saying "how can you believe anything Zimmerman says?" Again, an unbelievably dangerous notion. To require Zimmerman to prove any of his actions to a jury goes against the very foundation of our system. As I said in an earlier post, I am very thankful we live in a country where the government has to prove guilt. I would think you would agree."

I completely agree with this. Of course the burden of proof is on the side of the government.

However when you admit to a crime and are a defense where the only evidence is your word, if your word can proven unreliable then the defense falls apart.

"You are entitled to your opinions, of course. I, obviously, vehemently disagree. This is not a personal attack, but I agree with bojangle. I truly hope you never serve on a criminal jury based upon your opinions of the system."

We basically have one issue of disagreement and it is about a tiny, tiny minority of cases where an affirmative defense is possible and used. It's not about all cases and it's dishonest that it is.

There is one group of cases where I couldn't be on the jury- capital cases. I could never in good conscience vote for the death penalty.
Click to expand...

But it isn't a tiny issue- the same reason you can't use it without the affirmative defense is the same reason you can't use it WITH the affirmative defense. Add the following to my hypothetical "given the circumstantial evidence of the murder, the only defense I have is my word and saying 'I didn't do it'" and you are logically in the same place.
 
RJKarl said:
However when you admit to a crime and are a defense where the only evidence is your word, if your word can proven unreliable then the defense falls apart. [/B]
Click to expand...

Except that the only evidence is not just his word.
 
bojanglefunk said:
But it isn't a tiny issue- the same reason you can't use it without the affirmative defense is the same reason you can't use it WITH the affirmative defense. Add the following to my hypothetical "given the circumstantial evidence of the murder, the only defense I have is my word and saying 'I didn't do it'" and you are logically in the same place.
Click to expand...

No it's not all. In this case he admitted to killing Trayvon. In your case the person is saying he didn't kill the person. It's as different as you can get.

As to your apology, you start out by calling it red herring. Why can't you just man up and say what you did was wrong. No qualifications or justifications. what did was wrong.
 
RJKarl said:
No it's not all. In this case he admitted to killing Trayvon. In your case the person is saying he didn't kill the person. It's as different as you can get.

As to your apology, you start out by calling it red herring. Why can't you just man up and say what you did was wrong. No qualifications or justifications. what did was wrong.
Click to expand...

I am calling it a red herring to the argument at hand, which it is. I apologized.
 
OK. whatever....

It's also absurd fro you and Les to jump to the conclusion about having me on a jury. Again an insult.

This thread is going nowhere.
 
RJKarl said:
OK. whatever....

It's also absurd fro you and Les to jump to the conclusion about having me on a jury. Again an insult.

This thread is going nowhere.
Click to expand...


Jump to conclusions? I'm basing that opinion on your words. If you said the things you say here on a message board...I can only imagine what you'd say in a deliberation room. You know, kind of like if someone lies about their finances to the judge that must mean they're lying about their self-defense claim.
 
I can't imagine that there are many cases where someone says,"I killed somebody" and tried to justify it without any evidence.

If somebody lies about something that frees themselves from jail, they are far more likely to lie about self-defense. Plus he lied about his passport.

There is no evidence of self-defense.

You jumping to conclusions about ALL cases from ONE case shows you were looking for an excuse to justify such a position.
 
bojanglefunk said:
RJ, please explain to me how lying to a judge about a passport and financial situation makes it more or less likely that someone acted in self defense. Not whether the person should be believed, but whether the action that he acted in self defense or the action that he did not act in self defense is more or less likely.
Click to expand...

RJKarl said:
I can't imagine that there are many cases where someone says,"I killed somebody" and tried to justify it without any evidence.

If somebody lies about something that frees themselves from jail, they are far more likely to lie about self-defense. Plus he lied about his passport.

There is no evidence of self-defense.

You jumping to conclusions about ALL cases from ONE case shows you were looking for an excuse to justify such a position.
Click to expand...

I think, once again, that you're getting at why Stand Your Ground is a sh*tty law and less at why Zimmerman did not act in self-defense.
 
RJKarl said:
I can't imagine that there are many cases where someone says,"I killed somebody" and tried to justify it without any evidence.

If somebody lies about something that frees themselves from jail, they are far more likely to lie about self-defense. Plus he lied about his passport.

There is no evidence of self-defense.

You jumping to conclusions about ALL cases from ONE case shows you were looking for an excuse to justify such a position.
Click to expand...


There's no evidence of self-defense? What are you talking about?
 
The only "evidence" of self-defense is Zimmerman saying so. There are no pictures. There are no witnesses.
 
Regardless of how some want to construe it, I've never said the state didn't have a tough case.
 
RJKarl said:
The only "evidence" of self-defense is Zimmerman saying so. There are no pictures. There are no witnesses.
Click to expand...

You mean there are no pictures confirming Zimmerman's injuries?

Or no witnesses to testify that they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him up?

Or any evidence showing Martin was shot at close range?
 
RJKarl said:
Regardless of how some want to construe it, I've never said the state didn't have a tough case.
Click to expand...

you've already said you'd vote guilty before they even presented the case!
 
bobknightfan said:
As long as everyone is big on this "proof" thing......where is any proof that any injuries which Zimmerman may have had were incurred by Martin? Maybe he already had them. Maybe he self-inflicted them after the fact to support a case of self-defense. Any of that makes as much sense as anything else.....since he killed the only witness.
Click to expand...

Now you're just being silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top