The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

@parados,

parados wrote:

The defense will have to provide evidence to supply that reasonable doubt.

Believe it or not, Parados, that is a note we can agree on. Observe, though, that "enough evidence to raise a reasonable doubt" is a ridiculously low standard of proof. I would be flabbergasted if the defense failed to meet it. And that's not because Zimmerman's probability of being innocent is so high; it's because the standard of proof for his defense is so low.

3 Replies

@Thomas,

I think what the prosecution is trying to do is to prove that Zimmerman lied.

That's about as relevant as their stand your ground law.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

That's about as relevant as their stand your ground law.

"Stand your ground" plays no part in Zimmerman's defense. That's just another one of those red herrings they like to talk about on TV. Zimmerman's defense is plain-vanilla, Common-Law self-defense.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

And that's not because Zimmerman's probability of being innocent is so high; it's because the standard of proof for his defense is so low.

Not really. We are left with the reasonable person standard.

Do you think a reasonable person would shoot another simply because they are losing a fist fight? I don't. I doubt anyone on the jury feels that is what a reasonable person would do. OMSigDavid may feel that way, but I don't consider him reasonable. If I was on a jury, I would want proof that Zimmerman felt his life was in danger.

2 Replies

@parados,

You would never make the jury due to the fact you think he is already guilty. A death penalty case you could support I'm sure.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

parados wrote:
The defense will have to provide evidence to supply that reasonable doubt.

Believe it or not, Parados, that is a note we can agree on. Observe, though, that "enough evidence to raise a reasonable doubt" is a ridiculously low standard of proof. I would be flabbergasted if the defense failed to meet it. And that's not because Zimmerman's probability of being innocent is so high; it's because the standard of proof for his defense is so low.

You are so correct Thomas, that's the reason the US jails are so empty, no one can prove anything against criminals in this country due to "the standard of proof for his defense is so low". Yeap, you carry a lot of credibility on that one........

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Not really. We are left with the reasonable person standard.

Not really. Florida wiped that out.

1 Reply

@BillW,

BillW wrote:

If Zimmerman is found completely innocent after what is now known,
Florida will have created legaized murder by law.

That 's a foolish thing to say.

(Note that "legaized [sic] murder" is an oxymoronic contradiction-in-terms.)

If someone is attacked, as Zimmy was,
he shud end the threat as quickly as he possibly can,
not try to protect the bad guy.

BillW wrote:

For instance, just say, that little boy jumped out in front of me and scared me to death.
I just had to run over him cause he was gonna attack me...........

Your post confuses the law of torts, applied to traffic collisions,
with the law of self defense in criminal litigation.
That 's like oil and water.

Your posts have been rife with confusion.

David

0 Replies

@Thomas,

I was only going by the early chatter on this case. What transpired since then is for the jury to figure out.

I believe my comment has relevance in this case; I could be wrong.

0 Replies

"The 2012 Florida Statutes:
782.02 Justifiable use of deadly force.—The use of deadly force is justifiable
when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or
to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any
dwelling house in which such person shall be."

Zimmy was having his head beaten on the street by decedent.

I dunno if this has already been posted here or not.

David

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I think what the prosecution is trying to do is to prove that Zimmerman lied.

That's about as relevant as their stand your ground law.

This has already been done, it is now the DA role to prove the significance of these lies and show how they are self serving and how certain evidence changes depending upon which versions you believe.

The DA also have got to show the strong degree as to my the police department is backing Z and why. Because the DA made them arrest him and make a case against Z.

Also. it is my belief that the police is giving Zimmerman a bye because his is the Neighborhood Watch, the eyes of the police. They are giving him the same support they would give a cop.

Furthermore, I am wondering if the DA is trying the case would really don't care if they win, or even prefer that they loose. They are going through the act just for the original public outcry and for the parents.

Well, this is a lot for now.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
That's about as relevant as their stand your ground law.

"Stand your ground" plays no part in Zimmerman's defense. That's just another one of those red herrings they like to talk about on TV. Zimmerman's defense is plain-vanilla, Common-Law self-defense.

"Stand your ground" is constantly the elephant hiding in the corner. The defense has already inferred that if they don't win the trail. they are immediately going for a "Stand your ground" defense.

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

Persecution now flailing...

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/detective-returns-stand-zimmerman-trial

Quote:
SANFORD, Fla. (AP) — Prosecutors want to bring up George Zimmerman's school records at his murder trial to show he knew about Florida's stand-your-ground law. Defense attorneys are arguing they are irrelevant.

Prosecutors asked a judge Tuesday to allow them to introduce school records showing Zimmerman took a class that addressed Florida's self-defense law. They say it will show he had knowledge of the law, even though he claimed he didn't in an interview with talk show host Sean Hannity.

Maybe he was not confident
in his understanding of the material
that he learned in that class.

2 Replies

@BillW,

Thomas wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
That's about as relevant as their stand your ground law.

"Stand your ground" plays no part in Zimmerman's defense. That's just another one of those red herrings they like to talk about on TV. Zimmerman's defense is plain-vanilla, Common-Law self-defense.

BillW wrote:

"Stand your ground" is constantly the elephant hiding in the corner.
The defense has already inferred that if they don't win the trail.
they are immediately going for a "Stand your ground" defense.

Is that POSSIBLE, under Florida law, AFTER a conviction??

I dunno, but presumably that 'd be waived
if it were not raised at trial, unless the applicable statute
says otherwise.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Maybe he was not confident
in his understanding of the material
that he learned in that class.

You know that feeling well, doncha, Om?

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

So you think it is reasonable to shoot someone if you are losing a fist fight?

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

I thought his version of events were awfully convenient.

All in all, a better day for prosecutors.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
Not really. We are left with the reasonable person standard.

Not really. Florida wiped that out.

Not according to jury instructions -

Quote:

The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force.

3 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

The whole point, Par, is that Martin was a young, black person.
His proper place is to be submissive and respectful when his betters confront him.[/sarcasm]

Yes, at least to the point
of NOT BEATING THEIR HEADS AGAINST THE STREET.

For the hell of it, let me take it a step further,
in racial role reversal:
if a white is confronted by a black naborhood watch captain
asking the reason for his presence,
the white shud not become violent either.

(The furthest that the white can reasonably go,
if he fears an imminent robbery or violent assault,
is to put his hand on his gun, WITHOUT
un-holstering it, nor bringing it into view.)

Asking a question is not an offense; it is not an attack.
Free speech prevails.

David

0 Replies

@parados,

I have this feeling that the jury is going to want to hear from Zimmerman, himself, about his state of mind.

By refusing to get on the stand, he's going to give the jury something to think about.

2 Replies

The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know