[News] The Trayvon Martin Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?
I sure it. Sosme devunt I'm thinking more ling but
It makes you arguably less guilty, depending on the circumstances. One can throw the first punch and still not be at fault for starting the fight
Casey Anthony is still living in hiding, unemployed since her acquittal in 2011. She just filed for bankruptcy in March, and at the trial the judge ordered the book and movie rights for her story be sold to pay of her creditors.
She is still convinced her life is in danger, and I do not doubt that it is, given that it only takes one crazy person with the means and opportunity to do it, and there are likely hundreds of crazy people still angry with her.
I don't know that Zimmerman will be in a better position, but his attackers will know that he carries and will use a gun in his own defense, so there's that...[DOUBLEPOST=1373652071][/DOUBLEPOST]Do stand your ground laws actually reverse the burden of proof? It seems to me that they don't. The prosecutor still has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the stand your ground law doesn't apply.
It depends on the jurisdiction. Self-defense is an affirmative defense in some, but not in others.
This defense is not using Stand Your Ground, it is using basic self-defense rules.
One though is this:
The "self defense" raises reasonable doubt. Whatever evidence the defense provides to support that doubt is good, but even just the claim that it was self defense is still considered.
The prosecution still has to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the murder was not self defense. So the prosecution only has the burden to provide evidence that erases all reasonable doubt, including the doubt created by the defense in regards to self defense.
Which turns it into the same tug of war you'd have at any other trial. Both sides have evidence. But the prosecution is still responsible for convincing the jury that there is no reasonable doubt that the murder was not in self defense.
But I'm curious about the jurisdiction issue - what actually changes at trial based on the location?[DOUBLEPOST=1373653045][/DOUBLEPOST]
The "self defense" raises reasonable doubt. Whatever evidence the defense provides to support that doubt is good, but even just the claim that it was self defense is still considered.
The prosecution still has to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the murder was not self defense. So the prosecution only has the burden to provide evidence that erases all reasonable doubt, including the doubt created by the defense in regards to self defense.
Which turns it into the same tug of war you'd have at any other trial. Both sides have evidence. But the prosecution is still responsible for convincing the jury that there is no reasonable doubt that the murder was not in self defense.
But I'm curious about the jurisdiction issue - what actually changes at trial based on the location?[DOUBLEPOST=1373653045][/DOUBLEPOST]
Ah, right, I forgot they dropped that like a hot potato near the beginning of the hearings.
Aren't you required by law to write that in French as well?
Well, yeah - so long as Nancy Grace draws breath, Casey Anthony best sleep with one eye open.
Oui... si je sois un bon Canadien. Which I am not (see: hockey, apologising).
Ugh. Nancy Grace.
I didn't know this. And it makes me feel a bit sad, I guess. Ah well. C'est la vie.
In juridictions where self-defense is affirmative, Zimmerman would need to prove that he was in a situation where self-defense (the legal definition of it) was the only option. The rationale is that since there's no reasonable doubt that he killed Martin, he needs to prove that he was right to do so, otherwise (as the theory goes) a criminal who murders another criminal in an enclosed area with no witnesses could claim self-defense as a reasonable doubt and the prosecution would be unable to convict him despite the defendant's statement that he did in fact kill the other party.
In jurisdictions where self-defense is non-affirmative (NY for example), it's exactly the same as a regular murder trial, where the prosection needs to dis-prove the self-defense case.[DOUBLEPOST=1373654566][/DOUBLEPOST]I can see the arguments for both approaches for self-defense, but in this particular case (as I stated above) I'm worried that the interpretation of evidence is going to hinge on the witness report that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and the confusion over whose voice was on the phone, neither of which actually mean anything or support either story over the other.
What it should come down to: "We, the jury, representing the will of society, find him guilty of taking self defense too far, and therefore will punish him for it so others understand that a few knocks on the head don't justify murder."
What it will come down to: "We, the jury, following the instructions given by the judge, have reasonable doubt that the murder was not justified by the laws of self defense."
Then zimmerman will have to live out his life at the edges of society avoiding crazy people who believe justice wasn't served.
What it will come down to: "We, the jury, following the instructions given by the judge, have reasonable doubt that the murder was not justified by the laws of self defense."
Then zimmerman will have to live out his life at the edges of society avoiding crazy people who believe justice wasn't served.
Dave
Staff member
What there needs to be is some sort of registry for murderers where they have to go to their neighbors and announce their crimes, years after they have served their time.
GasBandit
Staff member
More like, "We, the jury, in the interests of not being torn apart by a mob incapable of seeing this using any lens other than race, find the defendant expendable in the name of placating the professionally offended."
.jpg/250px-Holoship_(Red_Dwarf).jpg)
The language barrier is too much for me this time. There are some times that I have a "brilliant" speech about the theme at hand and I just don't know how to express it. Then, I try to condense it and this is the result. Let's leave it there.
GasBandit
Staff member
I'll take a crack at deciphering it...
"There are some who think under the circumstances, it is ok for Zimmerman to have killed Martin even though Treyvon was just an innocent before the altercation. If the jury finds Zimmerman guilty, these people should realize that the same principle would apply here (the condemnation of an innocent), except here there isn't even a death at stake. "
Not that I agree with it, but I think I sort of see what he's trying to communicate. IE, if you were OK with Zimmerman killing Martin, you should also be OK with Zimmerman still being found guilty.
welp
Zappit
Staff member
Jesus Christ. The comments sections of the news articles read like a friggin' clan rally. (Yes, I know. Never read the comments.) It just scares me that there are so many people actually celebrating this verdict because Zimmerman got a pass for killing a black boy. Literally for that exact stated reason.
Thing is, it just doesn't surprise me anymore. That's what kills me. Part of me was expecting every bit of this.
Thing is, it just doesn't surprise me anymore. That's what kills me. Part of me was expecting every bit of this.
The prosecution had a shitty base to stand on. I really don't think they had the means at their disposal to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. You can bitch about it, but at the end of the day that is how our legal system is supposed to work. The Court of Public Opinion is theoretically not supposed to decide the outcome of a trial. No one would even give a shit about the outcome if it was 2 people of the same race.
BananaHands
Staff member
Hey look a Black Woman fired warning shots in FLA!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/
Too bad she wasn't white, amiright?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/
Too bad she wasn't white, amiright?
All this case has taught me is that anything and everything is and must be a racial issue. I also completely believe had this been two white or two black or two Hispanic people this would have not gotten no more than a blurb. But no, instead the media chooses to use dated photos, edited audio, label Zimmerman a "white" Hispanic and so on. I don't have too much of a personal opinion on the case other than I'm largely tired of racial politics.
I
It's no better than the 'better watch your back or you might disappear' comments that are plastered everywhere. What a surprise from such an unnecessarily racially charged case.
It's no better than the 'better watch your back or you might disappear' comments that are plastered everywhere. What a surprise from such an unnecessarily racially charged case.