• 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

Fair enough. I really just don't see how, based on the requirements for a guilty verdict posted by the board Atty's, anyone could say they would vote guilty. I can understand thinking he's guilty (I agree with that), but saying you'd vote guilty is really surprising.
 
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...

EatLeadCommie said:
Now you're just being silly.
Click to expand...

That's actually as good of a point as I've seen today, but it's giving me nightmarish flashbacks to the moment when some philosophy prof in undergrad deconstructed the history of "truth."
 
bobknightfan said:
You ever heard of Captain Jeffrey McDonald?

Our G-2 office & the CI people coordinated the investigation on him when I was in the army at Fort Bragg & he killed his wife & children. And that's exactly what he did.

(And I'll admit that I wasn't all that serious.....but most of the crap being spewed in his defense doesn't make any sense, either. It's mostly about how some sharp attorneys can twist some legalities and get him off on a techicality.)
Click to expand...

Yes. He was the Fatal Vision guy who blamed his family's death on a band of crazy hippies. I don't see how that is in any way relevant to Zimmerman. You are asserting that his wounds are self-inflicted or happened before the confrontation when we have witnesses to a confrontation, evidence of his head bleeding immediately afterwards, and no witnesses to him self-inflicting the wounds or having them beforehand.
 
RJKarl said:
Like the McCain worker who claimed she was attacked by a black Obama worker?
Click to expand...

What in the Sam Hill fucking shit are you talking about?

Jesus Christ, this thread has devolved into complete madness.
 
bobknightfan said:
What does that mean? You don't have any witnesses to the contrary, either. And I'm not asserting anything. I'm just offering conjecture.....like everyone else on this board. The only thing we know for certain is that 1) Martin was unarmed; 2) Zimmerman was armed; 3) Zimmerman chased Martin down, initiated contact with him, and ultimately killed him with his gun.
Click to expand...

Actually we don't know that one with certainty.
 
I love how the two most liberal members on this board keep talking about how Zimmerman can't prove his version of the story.
 
Saying I'm one of the two most liberal members of this board shows how little you actually pay attention and how lazy you are.
 
RJKarl said:
Saying I'm one of the two most liberal members of this board shows how little you actually pay attention and how lazy you are.
Click to expand...

Fine. One of the most obstinate members of the boards.
 
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...

bojanglefunk said:
But the problem is that by doing that you are introducing evidence that has absolutely not relevance as to whether the action that is alleged occurred or not.

Lets say I am accused of killing someone, but I have not done that. Now lets say at the same time I am, in fact, committing insurance fraud and as such I hide assets and lie to the police about money that has been moved around. Lets say that a judge asks me about a monetary issue in a hearing related to the murder I am accused of. I lie. I lie, however, NOT because I murdered someone (I didn't), but instead to cover up the insurance fraud I was committing. Are you saying the fact that I lied about my money should be used to help prove that I murdered someone? I think that this example is a clearer way to look at the unintended consequences your new evidentiary regime would have. In that instance the fact that I lied about my monetary situation has absolutely zero relevance to determining whether or not I took actions that ended another persons life. Unless it is related to motive, intent, preparation, plan, etc. of the murder (which in this case it isn't) the evidence does not factor into whether it is more or less likely I killed the person (i.e. relevance) and is highly prejudicial against me as jurors might punish me for simply being dishonest in another instance.

It seems less clear to you in the Zimmerman case because the entire trial is about whether or not he killed in self defense, not about whether or not he killed.
Click to expand...

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...

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.
Click to expand...

RJ - consent is an affirmative defense to a lot of things. Let's use trespass as a completely watered-down example. I enter your home without your consent, I am trespassing. I enter your home with your consent, I am not trespassing. I enter your house and am arrested for trespassing. There is no doubt I entered your house, but I say that you gave me permission to be there. I have a key (that you in fact gave me, but there is no actual evidence where the key came from - for all anyone knows, I could have stolen it from you), but nothing else other than my word that you gave me permission to enter your house. You say you did not give me permission to be there. Same as in bojangle's example, at the same time I am, in fact, committing insurance fraud and as such I hide assets and lie to the police about money that has been moved around. A judge asks me about a monetary issue in my bond hearing in my trespass case. I lie. Are you saying the fact that I lied about my money should be used to help prove that I trespassed in your house?

If you cannot see how radical a departure this would be from the well established rules of evidence (and the rationale for them), I can't help you. You also keep mentioning that there is no evidence of self-defense (which, as others have pointed out, there is circumstantial evidence other than Zimmerman's word), but in doing so, you are completely shifting the burden of proof. The prosecution has to prove that the killing was not in self-defense, not the other way around.
 
bobknightfan said:
You ever heard of Captain Jeffrey McDonald?

Our G-2 office & the CI people coordinated the investigation on him when I was in the army at Fort Bragg & he killed his wife & children. And that's exactly what he did.

(And I'll admit that I wasn't all that serious.....but most of the crap being spewed in his defense doesn't make any sense, either. It's mostly about how some sharp attorneys can twist some legalities and get him off on a technicality.)
Click to expand...

Gotta hate those pesky technicalities of presumed innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Sure makes it tough to convict people.
 
RJKarl said:
Saying I'm one of the two most liberal members of this board shows how little you actually pay attention and how lazy you are.
Click to expand...

Good point. Based solely on your posts on this thread, you're a borderline fascist.
 
Wakelaw2006 said:
RJ - consent is an affirmative defense to a lot of things. Let's use trespass as a completely watered-down example. I enter your home without your consent, I am trespassing. I enter your home with your consent, I am not trespassing. I enter your house and am arrested for trespassing. There is no doubt I entered your house, but I say that you gave me permission to be there. I have a key (that you in fact gave me, but there is no actual evidence where the key came from - for all anyone knows, I could have stolen it from you), but nothing else other than my word that you gave me permission to enter your house. You say you did not give me permission to be there. Same as in bojangle's example, at the same time I am, in fact, committing insurance fraud and as such I hide assets and lie to the police about money that has been moved around. A judge asks me about a monetary issue in my bond hearing in my trespass case. I lie. Are you saying the fact that I lied about my money should be used to help prove that I trespassed in your house?

If you cannot see how radical a departure this would be from the well established rules of evidence (and the rationale for them), I can't help you. You also keep mentioning that there is no evidence of self-defense (which, as others have pointed out, there is circumstantial evidence other than Zimmerman's word), but in doing so, you are completely shifting the burden of proof. The prosecution has to prove that the killing was not in self-defense, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

Well done. Must suck to have literally every actual attorney in this board team up against you on a legal issue.
 
Les Grossman said:
Good point. Based solely on your posts on this thread, you're a borderline fascist.
Click to expand...

If you can call me an borderline fascist, it's perfectly legitimate for me to call you leaning to being a lazy, arrogant asshole.

Plus you can't read the English language. I specifically said it was about one type of case not all cases.

Using your lazy bullshit name-calling identification if you believe in any type of public school or public libraries you must be either a flaming socialist or communist.
 
I'm still trying to figure out how it's being a "borderline fascist" to say once you are charged that everything you say to anyone (other than your attorney) involved in the case should be admissible.
 
RJKarl said:
I'm still trying to figure out how it's being a "borderline fascist" to say once you are charged that everything you say to anyone (other than your attorney) involved in the case should be admissible.
Click to expand...

Hold on a second - that is even more broad than what you were trying to let in before. Let's go back to my trespass example. I enter your house, I say you gave me permission, you say you didn't. This time I'm not committing insurance fraud, so I don't lie about anything at my bail hearing. In fact, when the judge asks me why he shouldn't throw me in jail, I am brutally honest and tell him that he shouldn't throw me in jail because I hate black people and I think most of the people in jail are black. The jury should get to hear that?
 
That is ridiculous. That has nothing to do with the case.

As I said it's about THIS type of case NOT every case.

This is ridiculous. Nothing positive is happening here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top