George Zimmerman (killer of unarmed Florida teen Trayvon Martin) found not guilty
- Thread starter Dude Abides
- Start date
- Status
Dude Abides
Banned
He hast to provide evidence. We already went over this.
oh wow
Killing_Joke
Member
Jury wasn't there.
No, she follows Zimmerman's brother. I'm looking at it right now.
soundscream
Member
Police chief was fired.
Yeah but unless she's a fucking terrific liar she has no fucking clue how twitter works.
Neither it appears does the prosecution.
Big Baybee
Member
lol.
He's already admitted he killed trayvon Martin. He has to present his argument that he did it in self defense. The state has to prove he didn't do it in self defense. They can do this directly or they can approach the situation from a different angle (By say, arguing that under the circumstances, George Zimmerman did not have the right to use lethal force in self defense, because he was committing the crime of assault)
Is testifying in court the only way for him to get his version of the events into evidence?
why wasnt the jury in the room?
Mom's friend's bro is the new chief. Strangely enough
There was one. But, he just stated what the scene was like after he arrived. Didn't really go either way for the pros or def.
Killing_Joke
Member
She has awful taste in celebs.
Dude Abides
Banned
Pretty much. There's the picture of his injuries, but that's not really enough to demonstrate his whole story, IMO. A defendant who takes the Fifth is considered unavailable for purposes of the hearsay rule, but his story to the police doesn't fit into any of the hearsay exceptions (former testimony, statement under belief of impending death, statement against interest,statement of personal or family history, statement by deceased or ill declarant similar to one previously admitted)
She did follow him. She said she doesn't know how to use Twitter and used the "follow" button as proof she isn't following him.
The follow button is there for the person who's logged in though, not the account you're looking at.
ETA: What kind of sick person follows Donald Trump Jr?
Portugeezer
Member
Zimmerman will be a free man.
Side note: Rachel Jeantel... my God.
Side note: Rachel Jeantel... my God.
mercenar1e
Member
if shes following her brother the prosecution can argue that her testimony was given to benefit the defense of GZ.. they can bring it up in closing arguments and it would make him look bad which is why they brought the issue up to the judge outside of a jury so it can be approved into court or dropped without hurting either side
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Well, in this case, isn't it a little different? Zimmerman admits to killing Trayvon. That is not in question here. The question is wether it was in self defense or not. Zimmerman says it is self defense, so shouldn't he have to prove it?
PotatoeMasher
Member
Depends on Florida I would think, but my instinct is that the burden still remains on the prosecution to prove that it wasn't self-defense. I don't really have any emotion in this case, btw, so if Florida has some different stuff going on that's cool too.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
That seems crazy to me. Anyone can kill and just say 'self defense' prove it was not! If there are no witnesses, you are scott free. :/
mercenar1e
Member
the prosecution has to prove that the killing wasn't in self defense, the defense has to disprove/discredit the evidence brought by the prosecution.
What leads you to believe this?
Dude Abides
Banned
Burden of proof actually encompasses three separate concepts, the burden of pleading, the burden of production, and the burden of persuasion.
Per Florida law, Zimmerman has to raise the defense (bears the burden of pleading) and produce some evidence to support it (burden of production) but the prosecution still must persuade the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self-defense (burden of persuasion).
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=cPUjgVt789_NOiU0LzV83Q&bvm=bv.48572450,d.dmg
soundscream
Member
This witness
(O.O)
(O.O)
lol thought the same thing when she got up.
It does have to be substantiated, not necessarily proven, though. His injuries would substantiate his claim. However, the witness testimony that the person on top was the one who walked away from the fight would throw that into question, and trayvon's actions (attempting to run away according to both zimmerman and his GF) seem to suggest that he was the one acting defensively.
I said this before, but based on the circumstances, Zimmerman, I beleive, faced the choice of murder or death. Am I saying that Zimmerman does not have the right to defend himself? No. I'm saying under these circumstances, Zimmerman didn't have the right to kill Trayvon Martin.
PotatoeMasher
Member
Does anyone have a copy of the instructions that were given to the jury? That would likely explain the self-defense thing in the clearest language. I just found the general instructions from the Florida Supreme Court, but the specific language is chosen based on the case.
Dude Abides
Banned
Jury instructions are given at the end of the case, not the beginning.
I've never been clear on something. Self-defense is a justification, meaning that no crime was committed, as the law permits someone to perform the action taken. But, say, an insanity plea is an excuse, meaning a crime was committed, but there's some reason the punishment should not be doled out anyway. Do you know if the state still has to persuade beyond a reasonable doubt for a lack of insanity? Or does the fact that it's an excuse change it to something like a civil affirmative defense, where the burden of proof shifts completely to the defendant? And if it does shift, is it a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, or preponderance of the evidence?
Dude Abides
Banned
Most states defendant has to prove insanity by a preponderance, minority of states prosecution must prove it BRD. In federal cases defendant has to prove it by C&C.
PotatoeMasher
Member
Good point. I'm guessing that the instructions they'll be given are set, but maybe that's not the case. Anyway, would rather not speculate and sounds like this discussion has happened before.
edit: Dude Abides dropping actual knowledge in these parts. I'm a fan.
Is it a calculated risk they might only take if they sense things are going well for them? It seems like it would be taking a hell of a chance to not have his version of events in there.
OrangeYouGlad
Banned
I'm trying to figure out why they went with her speaking through a translator. It wonder if it's just a matter of her not being able to describe things aptly enough in English.
Cool, thanks.
If he takes the stand he's open to cross examination by the prosecution, though. And that reason is precisely why most defendants are advised against testifying.
Telling your side of the story also means the prosecution gets a chance to pick it apart.
CrimsonCommie
Member
Another person saying the guy on top stood up.
soundscream
Member
Second witness to say that person on top got up.
soundscream
Member
I bet they are real and amazing!
One person saying it is one thing, two is another. If more people come on and say it...
soundscream
Member
Fuck I hear it now.
CrimsonCommie
Member
Wow you're right!
soundscream
Member
Killing_Joke
Member
<3 colombian woman.
So they're trying to prove GZ was on top during the shooting.
So they're trying to prove GZ was on top during the shooting.
- Status