The Trayvon Martin Case

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Shocking. She actually called one for the defense.

Emotional nonsense.

[CosmicCowboy]

This is a direct quote from an article without sourcing. Poor form but good content.



This is typical emotional nonsense from the Zimmerman Defense Corps of Guero and Whitey.



This is actual analysis. This speaks to concepts of law and how the issues raised in the article apply. Taking facts and events and applying them.

That is one thing that I get from ZDCGW, this is completely emotional from them. You get like:

slam dunk
powerful
owned
destroy
shredded

What you don't get is any sort of real analysis but instead emotional hyperbole. That just tells me that ZDCGW is basing their conclusions on an emotional and not analytical reasoning. They are to analysis as Rick Perry is to politics.

The closest I get to it not being so is CC claiming "by all accounts" of "independent lawyers" or other similar takes. Not only is the notion of "all" wrong but it speaks directly to the first quote in my sig. He also has a penchant for making claims that his emotional claims are justified but then expects you to look it up.

All in all it's hard to take the ZDCGW seriously.

You are so full of .

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And more emotional appeal. You are just proving my point. Giggling is not analysis.

[CosmicCowboy]

The trial testimonies have provided all the facts of the case and I have linked/copied/pasted a load of them. You are the one acting like the pompous emotional .

I will say again:

The State had the burden to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Zimmerman was guilty of second degree murder.

They have miserably failed to do that.

If you think differently YOU are the one being emotional and not rational.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

They have miserably failed to do that.

And he digs his hole deeper. It's like you cannot help yourself.

Quoting trial transcripts and following with emotional hyperbole is not analysis.

[CosmicCowboy]

And he digs his hole deeper. It's like you cannot help yourself.

GFY

The jury will get the case Friday afternoon.

They are going to find Zimmerman not guilty of 2nd degree murder.

The state prosecutors did the best they could with a case that should have never gone to trial. They simply didn't have the facts to back up the charge.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

GFY

The jury will get the case Friday afternoon.

They are going to find Zimmerman not guilty of 2nd degree murder.

The state prosucutors did the best they could with a case that should have never gone to trial. They simply didn't have the facts to back up the charge.

Now we get bluster. Bravo, CC. You have demonstrated you have little more than the mindset of a 12 year old boy.

[admiralsnackbar]

The State had the burden to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Zimmerman was guilty of second degree murder.

I'll defer to anyone who possesses a law degree, but my understanding was that in death by self defense cases, the burden of proof is on the defendant.

[CosmicCowboy]

, if they allow the jury to work on Saturday they will be home for Sunday dinner. It won't be hard to make up their minds.

[CosmicCowboy]

Now we get bluster. Bravo, CC. You have demonstrated you have little more than the mindset of a 12 year old boy.

$100 says not guilty. Put your money where your mouth is bluster boy.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'll defer to anyone who possesses a law degree, but my understanding was that in death by self defense cases, the burden of proof is on the defendant.

nope. Burden of proof is on the prosecution.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you would like to fill this page up demonstrating that you are little more than a posturing blowhard then we can continue to do this.

[CosmicCowboy]

nope. Burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove it wasn't.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

$100 says not guilty. Put your money where your mouth is bluster boy.

Betting makes no difference in predicting the outcome. This is just you being an emotional child.

[Fabbs]

This is a direct quote from an article without sourcing. Poor form but good content.

Sources of fiber for you:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hig...-foods/NU00582

This is actual analysis. This speaks to concepts of law and how the issues raised in the article apply.

Could just as easily be an actual analysis that the all women jury could be powerfully moved by the implied GZ mindset and motive of protecting mothers and children. The 6 may be well aware of how frustrating the police system is. By the time they are dispatched, often times criminal X has split. Some people would hail GZ as someone who is willing to get involved vs the sit back and do nothing types.

[CosmicCowboy]

If you would like to fill this page up demonstrating that you are little more than a posturing blowhard then we can continue to do this.

If you would like to continue to prove you are a ing loudmouth emotional little pussy who is afraid to back up his (wrong) opinions we can continue to do this.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

nope. Burden of proof is on the prosecution.

In general, if you’re accused of a crime it’s up to the state to prove you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But things work a little differently if you are pleading self defense.
Basically —

Step 1: The prosecutor must prove the elements of the underlying crime beyond a reasonable doubt — basically that you intentionally shot the guy. But if you are pleading self defense, you will have admitted that, so we go to step 2.

Step 2: Now you must present evidence from which the trier of fact could infer that your conduct met the applicable legal standard justifying the use of lethal force in self defense. Depending on the State, you may not have to prove it, i. e., you may not have to convince the jury. But you will have to at least present a prima facie case, i. e., sufficient evidence which, if true, establishes that you have satisfied all legal elements necessary to justify your conduct.

Step 3: Now it’s the prosecutor’s burden to attack your claim and convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not act in justified self defense.

http://www.corneredcat.com/article/l...r-ground-laws/

Both parties have a burden of proof. FL statues obviously are going to be key but blustering proves nothing.

[tlongII]

I'll defer to anyone who possesses a law degree, but my understanding was that in death by self defense cases, the burden of proof is on the defendant.

I believe that is incorrect, but I'm no lawyer.

[CosmicCowboy]

Betting makes no difference in predicting the outcome. This is just you being an emotional child.

Proves you don't even believe your own bull . If you are so sure then take my money. According to you it would be as easy as stealing from a 12 year old.

.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you would like to continue to prove you are a ing loudmouth emotional little pussy who is afraid to back up his (wrong) opinions we can continue to do this.

Really, you are going to throw out juvenile insults that clearly indicate that you are upset by me and then try and make that claim? You really think that a third party reading this is going to buy this?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Proves you don't even believe your own bull . If you are so sure then take my money. According to you it would be as easy as stealing from a 12 year old.

.

Declining to place bets demonstrates that, huh?

[CosmicCowboy]

Declining to place bets demonstrates that, huh?

Demonstrates you don't believe in your own bull .

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Demonstrates you don't believe in your own bull .

Oh so placing bets demonstrates belief in the world you live in, huh. That speaks to you and not me.

I have no doubt you believe what you say but I am talking about the basis for said belief. For you it's about emotion, bluster and money apparently.

[KingsFanWithoutName]

In general, if you’re accused of a crime it’s up to the state to prove you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But things work a little differently if you are pleading self defense.
Basically —

Step 1: The prosecutor must prove the elements of the underlying crime beyond a reasonable doubt — basically that you intentionally shot the guy. But if you are pleading self defense, you will have admitted that, so we go to step 2.

Step 2: Now you must present evidence from which the trier of fact could infer that your conduct met the applicable legal standard justifying the use of lethal force in self defense. Depending on the State, you may not have to prove it, i. e., you may not have to convince the jury. But you will have to at least present a prima facie case, i. e., sufficient evidence which, if true, establishes that you have satisfied all legal elements necessary to justify your conduct.




Step 3: Now it’s the prosecutor’s burden to attack your claim and convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not act in justified self defense.

This is a direct quote from an article without sourcing. Poor form but good content.

[CosmicCowboy]

Oh so placing bets demonstrates belief in the world you live in, huh. That speaks to you and not me.

I have no doubt you believe what you say but I am talking about the basis for said belief. For you it's about emotion, bluster and money apparently.

After all the evidence has been presented anyone that still believes that those six jurors will unanimously find Zimmerman guilty of murder 2 is incapable of rational thought.

And you accuse ME of being the emotional one...

You just suck on SO many levels.