ChrisL68
Riley Skinner
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 31,206
- Reaction score
- 3,640
I would vote guilty.
Reasons:
I am a flaming liberal and the correct partisan position regarding this trial is that I would vote guilty.
FIFY
I would vote guilty.
Reasons:
I am a flaming liberal and the correct partisan position regarding this trial is that I would vote guilty.
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?
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.
Now you're just being silly.
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.)
Now you're just being silly.
He was shot at "intermediate range" according to the coroner.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...ed-from-intermediate-range-autopsy-shows?lite
There's no evidence that the injuries weren't gotten from Zimmerman attacking Trayvon.
Like the McCain worker who claimed she was attacked by a black Obama worker?
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
Good point. Based solely on your posts on this thread, you're a borderline fascist.
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.