Reply With Quote
Yeah but at the end of the day, your oppinion counts for . Only the law applies. How has the State proved without out a reasonable doubt that zimmerman wasn't acting in self defense?
It's up to the defense to present the basis for self defense. You can try and characterize it as 'turn around' or whatever the case may be but at the end of the day if you do not believe Zimmerman's account then there is no basis. It is the lynchpin especially since he declined to take the stand.
Yeah but at the end of the day, your oppinion counts for . Only the law applies. How has the State proved without out a reasonable doubt that zimmerman wasn't acting in self defense?
Its not my standard and you are inaccurately applying it. The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed Murder in the 2nd degree and that Zimmerman did not prove the elements of self defense. The question is not if you can reasonably doubt Zimmerman's story, which would be an easy burden to prove. In this case, after all the evidence has been shown, can you say beyond reasonable doube, in other words, under no cir stance could you possibly belive Zimmerman's account. That is sort of my layman explanation. There are other lawyers on this board that might be able to give a better definition.
I agree that the defense must meet the elements of self-defense, but if they have, and the court's jury instructions will verify that they did, it is my understanding that the jury does not then consider if the elements were met, but rather, did the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not have grounds for self-defense. Not sure if I am being clear in my point. I do not believe that it will be up to the jury to determine whether the defense showed self-defense, but rather, did the state disprove it.
It was so obvious that the cops didn't even arrest him.
While I agree the state did not meet its burder, the judge disagreed and determined that the showed enough evidence to take it to the jury. If I were Zimmerman, I would be crapping my pants right now because there is no way to know how this jury will rule. If any of the jury is even slightly charged by the media frenzy and all the info that has been out there, it would be easy for them to throw out the judge's instructions an find their own path to a verdict. I have personally been involved in three cases that we know of juror misconduct. I suspect several other cases but was unable to prove it.
Cops don't like to arrest Mexicans.
I'm going home. Its been a fun discussion and I hope to continue it later tonight.
The 2 constant themes throughout this trial are:
Skittles are a virtuous candy. Especially if bought before a confrontation.
Unathletic men taking MMA lessons best rely on a gun during a confrontation.
So carrying and handgun while in possession of Skittles covers about everything you need. Something to protect yourself or shoot a perceived threat, and a candy that indicates a passive nature. This combo cant lose.
So your take on the eyewitnesses that saw two men on the ground grappling?
Well they weren't detectives nor a medical examiner. Had not reviewed the call in to the dispatch. Had not reviewed the scene to determine whether or not there was a street sign. Any number of things that I have pointed out.
You don't even refute a thing I say. If you cannot do better than this next time I will just ignore you.
Keep up with the thread head. I just got through a list of REASONS to DOUBT Zimmerman's account of what happened.
I do not make absolute statements and make sure to indicate it's my opinion. It's your Zimmerman support group that makes declaratives like that.
I am not in the business in making claims as to the opinion of three FL women I do not know. However I think it's quite easy to come to my conclusion analytically.
If you choose to believe Zimmerman's account of events then so be it. I think it's obvious bull from a known liar.
Regardless of your feelings of how they came to the situation, do you believe the eyewitness accounts of Martin on top of Zimmerman? If so do you believe Zimmerman could have feared for his life?
Yes, Fuzzy, you are quite the analyst. They should convict that creepy ass white-Hispanic cracka on the street sign alone.
He's an expert, who has personally witnessed numerous head bashings (including brain damage).
Darrin quit acting like a petulant child. Trying to pick one tenant and grandstand on it is disingenuous. That is only one indication. Creating separate posts for each tenant is typical slimy bull from you but again there are a myriad of inconsistencies that I have pointed out.
Darrin apparently thinks having your head bashed into concrete over and over again results in a lightly bleeding laceration. That and the ME that said such injuries were not consistent with that account.
What I have seen doesn't matter. What does matter is that a ME, ie a professional, corroborates what I think.
Do you really think that Zimmerman's account was truthful?
I'll ask again FuzzyLumpkins
Fuzzy is just a stupid troll. You are wasting your time trying to reason with him.
He seems like a good guy just a bit full of himself. Is he always like this? Seems like not many would enjoy conversing with him but apparently he has a fan club, according to his sig.
There are conflicting reports as to who was where.
One thing is clear to me: Zimmerman is lying about how the confrontation started. He lied about why he got out of the car. He lied about what he was doing out there in the first place. He lied about what kind of punches/violence was done to him. All of these are because of simple cir stantial evidence.
He was not going the direction to go to the grocery store as per his conversation with the dispatcher. He was not getting out of the car to look at a street sign as there was no street sign where he got out of his car. He did not get his head repeatedly slammed into the concrete as per the ME.
There is more than reasonable doubt in my mind about whether or not he is telling the truth. I have no doubt he is lying as he has lied in court before.
Even the prosecution has pretty much conceded that Martin was on top, I'm not sure which trial you've been following.
You continue to dodge my question. I'll make it easier for you. Let's "pretend" Martin was on top, in that scenario do you think Zimmerman could have feared for his life?
Could one fear for his life although he's on top?
Sure, but I doubt he'll be answering that question.
I am definitely arrogant. I think I have reason to be. I understand multivariable calculus, PDEs, topology, stochastics, and harmonic analysis. Most people have difficulty beyond simple algebra and I have no issues in the highest of mathematics.
Simple logical proofs like application of laws or obvious causality are obvious.
I think the issue that people have is that I treat them with little respect. We have been posting here for a long time. By we I mean the ones that I am going back and forth with. Half of them are about two people that post on multiple accounts. Most of the reason why I give little respect though is because I see a methodology based on bias rather and logic and ideology as opposed to empiricism. And when people are intentionally misleading then I am hostile.
When I see it, I point it out and when people condescend me then I return it right back in kind.
All of that being said, I will admit when I am wrong. For example, elbamba was right and I was wrong as regards to self defense and presumption in the state of FL. There are all kinds of times I have been incorrect. That being said, I am not going to be persuaded by emotional appeal, bluster, or simpleminded bull . If that makes me an asshole then so be it.
Sure, I am not saying that at a certain point he could not have felt threatened. I just do not buy his story whatsoever.
I am watching the trial where Selma Mora said that Zimmerman was on top. There are all kinds of conflicting reports as to who was yelling for help and who was on top and all that. As such I don't even consider them. What I do consider is that Zimmerman has lied consistently about what events happened leading up to the confrontation.
The law is very clear that if you cause the confrontation then you waive your right to self defense. Martin was trying to run away and Zimmerman pursued him. There really is no question about that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions