Witnesses tell FBI that George Zimmerman is no racist

  • Thread starter Thread starter rlg94086
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
seekerz said:
The point is that injuries severe enough to justify taking a child’s life must surely be severe enough for a person in their right mind to find an ER at the earliest. Commonsense - not evidence.
Click to expand...
You are assuming a specific state of mind.
 
seekerz said:
HE has the duty of convincing the jury that he truly believed his life to have been in danger (rather than the prosecution having to prove the opposite).
Click to expand...
rlg94086 said:
I’ve never heard that the “beyond a reasonable doubt” requirement to convict someone for murder is dropped because they brought up a particular defense.
Click to expand...
Burden of proof
Because an affirmative defense requires an assertion of facts beyond those claimed by the plaintiff, generally the party who offers an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof.[6] The standard of proof is typically lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. It can either be proved by clear and convincing evidence or by a preponderance of the evidence. In some cases or jurisdictions, however, the defense must only be asserted, and the prosecution has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense is not applicable.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense#cite_note-5

So they both have a job to do and I am pretty sure the prosecutor did hers before charging Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder.
 
kelvinf said:
Burden of proof
Because an affirmative defense requires an assertion of facts beyond those claimed by the plaintiff, generally the party who offers an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof.[6] The standard of proof is typically lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. It can either be proved by clear and convincing evidence or by a preponderance of the evidence. In some cases or jurisdictions, however, the defense must only be asserted, and the prosecution has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense is not applicable.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense#cite_note-5

So they both have a job to do and I am pretty sure the prosecutor did hers before charging Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the Wikepedia citation. I hope it’s accurate, even in its vagueness.

As for your last comment, a lot of legal experts disagree with your assessment of the prosecutor’s charges of 2nd degree murder. I’m not sure why you have so much faith in her abilities. Do you know her?
 
rlg94086 said:
Thanks for the Wikepedia citation. I hope it’s accurate, even in its vagueness.

As for your last comment, a lot of legal experts disagree with your assessment of the prosecutor’s charges of 2nd degree murder. I’m not sure why you have so much faith in her abilities. Do you know her?
Click to expand...
They disagree with the prosecutor without seeing all the evidence, so I am not surprised by that. I mean, the trial is still to take place. And these folks always have different opinions. If cases could be handled soley by commentaries on the media, then there would be no need for courts. The CA case comes to mind.

No, I don’t know her. But I know that she is supposed to be enforcing the law. Or do you think otherwise?
 
seekerz said:
The point is that injuries severe enough to justify taking a child’s life must surely be severe enough for a person in their right mind to find an ER at the earliest. Commonsense - not evidence.
Click to expand...
Sanford Police Det. Chris Serino told Zimmerman in a series of interviews that day that he was a “good guy,” but that there were holes in his story, including minor injuries that did not match the beating he said he received at the hands of a “child” who carried candy.

I would have thought that, that’s beyond reasonable doubt. He claimed Martin kept punching his face (“he just kept punching my face and my head…”), and bashing his head several times on the concrete (while he did nothing).

I find it hard to understand why anybody would 1. support that Zimmerman’s (minor) injuries match his description. 2. support his claim of killing this boy.
 
kelvinf said:
They disagree with the prosecutor without seeing all the evidence, so I am not surprised by that. I mean, the trial is still to take place. And these folks always have different opinions. If cases could be handled soley by commentaries on the media, then there would be no need for courts. The CA case comes to mind.

No, I don’t know her. But I know that she is supposed to be enforcing the law. Or do you think otherwise?
Click to expand...
I’m talking about attorneys, not commentators. And, you are assuming the prosecutor saw all the evidence before going for 2nd degree murder. That is quite an assumption.
 
kelvinf said:
Sanford Police Det. Chris Serino told Zimmerman in a series of interviews that day that he was a “good guy,” but that there were holes in his story, including minor injuries that did not match the beating he said he received at the hands of a “child” who carried candy.

I would have thought that, that’s beyond reasonable doubt. He claimed Martin kept punching his face (“he just kept punching my face and my head…”), and bashing his head several times on the concrete (while he did nothing).

I find it hard to understand why anybody would 1. support that Zimmerman’s (minor) injuries match his description. 2. support his claim of killing this boy.
Click to expand...
Done and done…no need for a trial then. 😛
 
rlg94086 said:
I’m talking about attorneys, not commentators.
Click to expand...
They are commentators when they appear on TV and start commenting on news/cases.(!)

Do you remember Zimmerman’s first attorneys?
And, you are assuming the prosecutor saw all the evidence before going for 2nd degree murder. That is quite an assumption.
Click to expand...
So they still didn’t do a thorough investigation? Do you want a different prosecutor to be appointed to take over the case? Cuz it now seems like you have a problem with the prosecutor.
 
kelvinf said:
Burden of proof
Because an affirmative defense requires an assertion of facts beyond those claimed by the plaintiff, generally the party who offers an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof.[6] The standard of proof is typically lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. It can either be proved by clear and convincing evidence or by a preponderance of the evidence. In some cases or jurisdictions, however, the defense must only be asserted, and the prosecution has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense is not applicable.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense#cite_note-5

So they both have a job to do and I am pretty sure the prosecutor did hers before charging Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder.
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure that this prosecutor was under a great deal of political pressure to charge Zimmerman with the most severe crime that was plausible.
 
rlg94086 said:
Done and done…no need for a trial then. 😛
Click to expand...
THe Florida Stand Your Ground law protects people who can reasonably prove that their actions were done in self-defense from any criminal or civil litigation. He did that, which is why he was released. He is being charged with murder now for no other reason than politics. My guess is that he is going to be found no-guilty by reason of Self Defense, in which case he will sue the pants off the state of Florida for violation his rights under the Stand Your Ground statute.
 
Seeker1961 said:
Whether he’s racist or not, if he had listened to the dispatcher and stayed in the vehicle until police arrived none of this would have happened.
Click to expand...
If Martin hadn’t gone to get skittles that night none of this would have happened either… :rolleyes:
 
child_of_God85 said:
Whether or not it was racially motivated, he needs hard prison time because it was hate motivated. He himself said that it was God’s will that he kill Trayvon. Some people here seem to he forgetting that the real and only victim is dead.
Click to expand...
Wow, we can now see into his heart as well? I am impressed!
More speculation based on ill placed emotions – facts would be nice…
 
seekerz said:
Had you been involved in a SYG situation when you made that choice?

Imagine for a moment that you were…One minute you’re so scared for your brain function/life that you take a kid’s life - the next minute you’re fine enough to go home and shower after answering some questions?!
Click to expand...
I would reverse the questions and ask – have you? Do you know how you mind and body is going to react to the stress? There have been countless cases where people have been in wrecks or other traumatic situations and refused transport to later find them in the hospital. This really proves nothing…
 
mtbender said:
If Martin hadn’t gone to get skittles that night none of this would have happened either… :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
So you are blaming Martin for going out to buy skittles? Because, yes, we are blaming Zimmerman for trailing Martin. We see this whole ordeal as Zimmerman’s fault because he profiled Martin and didn’t want him to get away; because according to him, “These a**holes always get away.” It was this poor judgement of his and him trying to play vigilante that thus caused this whole ordeal.

But it seems as if you now want to blame Martin for going out to buy candies. Interesting!
 
kelvinf said:
They are commentators when they appear on TV and start commenting on news/cases.(!)

Do you remember Zimmerman’s first attorneys?

So they still didn’t do a thorough investigation? Do you want a different prosecutor to be appointed to take over the case? Cuz it now seems like you have a problem with the prosecutor.
Click to expand...
I don’t have a problem with the prosecutor, I just think you put too much stock in her per-assessment of the limited evidence reviewed.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
THe Florida Stand Your Ground law protects people who can reasonably prove that their actions were done in self-defense from any criminal or civil litigation. He did that, which is why he was released. He is being charged with murder now for no other reason than politics. My guess is that he is going to be found no-guilty by reason of Self Defense, in which case he will sue the pants off the state of Florida for violation his rights under the Stand Your Ground statute.
Click to expand...
Definitely a possibility.
 
kelvinf said:
So you are blaming Martin for going out to buy skittles? Because, yes, we are blaming Zimmerman for trailing Martin. We see this whole ordeal as Zimmerman’s fault because he profiled Martin and didn’t want him to get away; because according to him, “These a**holes always get away.” It was this poor judgement of his and him trying to play vigilante that thus caused this whole ordeal.

But it seems as if you now want to blame Martin for going out to buy candies. Interesting!
Click to expand...
I don’t recall ever placing blame on anyone – I was only pointing out how irrelevant it is – the fact is Zimmerman’s actions may have been poor judgment – but not illegal.

I find it interesting that people are contesting that the mere fact that Zimmerman followed him makes him solely to blame for the crime – ignoring the fact that Martin may very well have made it a physical altercation. As a matter of fact – even by the girlfriends account, Martin made it a verbal altercation. Yet is seems everyone wants to say it was all Zimmerman – let’s pretend just for a minute that Zimmerman was just headed home – which happened to be in the same direction and was confronted by Martin – would he still be to blame? Or is the mere fact that he called 9-11 first make him the predator?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top