• 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

EatLeadCommie said:
Wow. So following a guy is ample excuse to justify an assault? Furthermore, the standards you apply to Zimmerman about having the opportunity to flee apparently don't apply to Trayvon.

By no reasonable standard is an assault an acceptable response to a person who thinks he is being followed. By legal standards, a provocation would be picking a fight. Trayvon did that when he confronted Zimmerman. "Do you have a problem? You do now, motherfucker." That's the fighting equivalent of the old pick-up line, "Do you have any Italian in you? Would you like some?" It indicates that Trayvon had made the decision to beat Zimmerman's ass when a reasonable person would have just walked to his destination and eaten his Skittles.

If Trayvon had lived and there had been no gun involved, Trayvon would be the one in a jail cell and not Zimmerman. It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...

Spot on.
 
WAKEandBAKE- Do you have a link for that? It has been a while since I have looked at the map and I have not seen the GF's statement.

DC- There were a couple cuts on the back of his head and he wasn't hit by a brick. He was hit by a fist in the nose, which broke his nose, and knocked a couple times in the back of the head against the sidewalk. Saying his head felt like it was going to explode seems reasonable to me, and is just as likely due to the broken nose (if not more so) as the cuts on his head.

Look, you can think I'm crazy all you want, but the prosecution has not outlined the case against him-- at all. Even in their indictment letter or whatever it's called, they are extremely ambiguous and state no specifics to justify an indictment. Alan Dershowitz even thinks so, so I guess he must be crazy too.
 
Last edited:
Lectro;768595} Evidence will eventually show that Trayvon was no "Steve Biko" but rather a kid fast tracking it to Thugsville. [/QUOTE said:
And Lectro rolls back in with his strange "he deserved to die because he was going to be a thug in the future" defense.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Shooshmoo said:
And Lectro rolls back in with his strange "he deserved today because he was going to be a thug in the future" defense.
Click to expand...

far from that...It is a tragedy all the way around and perhaps mostly for those cases that actually rise to the level of a hate crime.

You can gloss over Trayvon all you want but his history is relevant. Like a Rorshach test you fell in line with what the editorial board at CNN wanted you to conjure. It was like a large scale Stanley Millgram experiment and you just kept hitting the button.
 
Les Grossman said:
I say that because Florida has a unique process.

The Defense will ask for an immunity hearing. In other words, immunity from prosecution based upon self-defense. The judge acts as the jury and makes the factual determination of whether or not the defendant acted in self-defense. The burden at this hearing is on the defense and they only have to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence.

That's why I think it shouldnt get to a jury. Now, I think it will because it takes a huge set of balls on a judge to do that with this much media scrutiny.
Click to expand...

So you can kill someone in FL, and avoid trial, if you can establish by 51% of the E that you acted in self defense? Wow.

And I agree, no way the judge dismisses this case.
 
Ball State Deac said:
So you can kill someone in FL, and avoid trial, if you can establish by 51% of the E that you acted in self defense? Wow.

And I agree, no way the judge dismisses this case.
Click to expand...

It's not just FL and it has nothing to do with stand your ground. That's the case with your standard self defense case. And not really 51%, but lower...whatever the % is that would establish reasonable doubt.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
It's not just FL and it has nothing to do with stand your ground. That's the case with your standard self defense case. And not really 51%, but lower...whatever the % is that would establish reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think that probably is just FL (or at the very least, it is a small minority of states) - I believe self-defense is typically a jury question, not something a judge can decide by a preponderance of the evidence and have the defendant avoid a trial all together.
 
oh wait, I see what you're saying now. You're talking about having the case thrown at before trial. I was talking about reaching a verdict. My bad.
 
DeacMan said:
You seem to be in favor of a different system. Move to the UK. You'll have it.
Click to expand...

The system we have here is set up so the story of the accused doesn't even matter. Hell we have a 5th amendment that says the accused doesn't have to say a word for fear that they might say something self-incriminating. Miranda rights explain to the accused not to tell their story unless they want it to be used in court. Our system is pretty clear that we don't have to accept what an accused murder says as fact in order to put the burden on the prosecution to make the case. So it doesn't make sense that ELC and others are treating his word like gold. That's not how our system works.

DeacMan said:
Pos rep. Ph loves to engage in debates where he does nothing but move the proverbial goal posts.
Click to expand...

Any movement I do is saying the same thing in different ways in hopes that you'll open up your thick head and understand. You're the Zimmerman of these boards. You keep trolling me then you're shocked when you get your ass beat. Do what Zimmerman should have done. Ignore me. It would save you a lot of trouble.
 
PhDeac said:
The system we have here is set up so the story of the accused doesn't even matter. Hell we have a 5th amendment that says the accused doesn't have to say a word for fear that they might say something self-incriminating. Miranda rights explain to the accused not to tell their story unless they want it to be used in court. Our system is pretty clear that we don't have to accept what an accused murder says as fact in order to put the burden on the prosecution to make the case. So it doesn't make sense that ELC and others are treating his word like gold. That's not how our system works.
Click to expand...

Yet another example of ass backward logic.

In our system the story of the accused matters a lot. It is the story of the accused that is being debated in every criminal case. It is the very essence of every trial.

That story matters so much we don't even require the accused to tell the story in their own words. We simply presume they aren't a criminal and whatever their story may be we presume it is correct without even hearing it in the accused's own words. That's right, we live in a country where we presume people are not criminals. And we specifically instruct jurys that they cannot presume an accused who elects not to speak is guilty because of that choice. We make the prosecution present admissible evidence to show the accused is, in fact, guilty. And, not surprisingly, that presumption of innocence goes further in a rather logical way. In our country if the accused does elect to tell their story in court, the presumption remains that they are innocent and therefore telling the truth absent the presentation of other admissible evidence which contradicts their testimony.

So yeah, our system is pretty clear. You are to presume what an accused murderer says is factually accurate absent the presentation of admissible evidence that contradicts what the accused murderer says. That is exactly how our system works.
 
The accuser's story doesn't matter except to counter the evidence against him. A jury doesn't have to believe the accuser's story to find him innocent. They just have to find reasonable doubt in the prosecution's story. The story of the prosecution is what is debated because that is the story that can void the null event of innocence.
 
Ph is right.

Hell, you can confess to a crime and then turn around and plead not guilty still be found innocent if there is reasonable doubt.
 
PhDeac said:
The accuser's story doesn't matter except to counter the evidence against him. A jury doesn't have to believe the accuser's story to find him innocent. They just have to find reasonable doubt in the prosecution's story. The story of the prosecution is what is debated because that is the story that can void the null event of innocence.
Click to expand...

And you've now show yourself to be a full fledged retard and ass backward.

I'm not even going to get into the accuser's story. It's a whole different argument.

And innocence is not an "event" - it is a condition, sometimes about an event.

And the accused's story doesn't have to counter any evidence against him. It works the other way. That, again, is the basis of our system. The defendant enters a plea. Guilty, not guilty, not guilty by reason of insanity. When the trial starts that is what we presume to be true. And that is exactly what is being debated in the trial. That story. It is called the presumption of innocence. It is not called the game trying to figure out whether the prosecution is telling the truth. While that would be fun, there's too much at stake for that to be the basis of the game.
 
right, and his statement is irrelevant to his plea. you are correct, his plea is all that matters, not his statements or lack thereof. We are instructed not to presume anything when a defendant doesn't give a statement or testimony.

When Ph uses the term 'story' he is referring to the statement (or lack of) given by a defendant when questioned by police, as far as I can tell from the context of this part of the thread and his post.
 
Last edited:
DeacMan said:
Yet another example of ass backward logic.

In our system the story of the accused matters a lot. It is the story of the accused that is being debated in every criminal case. It is the very essence of every trial.

That story matters so much we don't even require the accused to tell the story in their own words. We simply presume they aren't a criminal and whatever their story may be we presume it is correct without even hearing it in the accused's own words. That's right, we live in a country where we presume people are not criminals. And we specifically instruct jurys that they cannot presume an accused who elects not to speak is guilty because of that choice. We make the prosecution present admissible evidence to show the accused is, in fact, guilty. And, not surprisingly, that presumption of innocence goes further in a rather logical way. In our country if the accused does elect to tell their story in court, the presumption remains that they are innocent and therefore telling the truth absent the presentation of other admissible evidence which contradicts their testimony.

So yeah, our system is pretty clear. You are to presume what an accused murderer says is factually
accurate absent the presentation of admissible evidence that contradicts what the accused murderer says. That is exactly how our system works.
Click to expand...

Outstanding post... you are drilling into hard rock and doing a damn fine job I might add..
 
Some thoughts on Ph and WakeandBake's posts:

I think you guys have to understand that there is a big difference between your normal criminal trial and one when there is a defense of self-defense.

In a self-defense case there is no issue that the defendant killed the victim. That's conceded. However, the defendant is still presumed innocent. In other words, he's presumed to have acted in self-defense. The reason why it's so unique is because you can not have a self-defense case without the defendant's story. So, if we are to presume the def acted in self-defense, the next logical step is we are to presume his story is true.

That's how the trial starts out, of course. Unlike other trials, the State devotes the rest of the trial trying to disprove the defendants story rather than trying to prove the defendant committed the crime.

If the jury comes to the belief that the self-defense story doesn't line up with the other evidence... Then he's guilty. If they're unsure, he's not guilty.

But in self defense cases, and this case in particular, you can not presume Zimmerman innocent (not not guilty) without first believing his story. If one chooses to change their mind after hearing all the evidence - thats fine. But that must be the mindset at the start.
 
Last edited:
Wakelaw2006 said:
Actually, I think that probably is just FL (or at the very least, it is a small minority of states) - I believe self-defense is typically a jury question, not something a judge can decide by a preponderance of the evidence and have the defendant avoid a trial all together.
Click to expand...

After thinking about it, I think this makes a lot of sense and am surprised that only FL or a minority of states have that system in place. Reason being is that it clears the docket of needless cases and also avoids a guilty man getting cut loose for good due to protections against double jeopardy. The prosecution can then go back to the drawing board and continue compiling evidence to make their case. I mean, honestly, if the preponderance of the evidence doesn't trend toward guilty, then how are you going to get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt?
 
Last edited:
EatLeadCommie said:
After thinking about it, I think this makes a lot of sense and am surprised that only FL or a minority of states have that system in place. Reason being is that it clears the docket of needless cases and also avoids a guilty man getting cut loose for good due to protections against double jeopardy. The prosecution can then go back to the drawing board and continue compiling evidence to make their case. I mean, honestly, if the preponderance of the evidence doesn't trend toward guilty, then how are you going to get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt?
Click to expand...


I think this procedure is crazy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top