[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Now you didn't see the question. Three times. Ok. And trust me ... my blood is far from up about it. I'm more .... "amused" would be a more accurate characterization.

And we'll note that you still didn't answer the question. I didn't ask you if GZ had the right to physically detain TM. I asked you if TM had the right to strike GZ if he did.

OAW

PS: And for the record, Rachel Jeantel said TM turned around and asked GZ "What you following me for?". And of course, you are intelligent enough to realize that TM would have had no way of knowing that GZ was a Neighborhood Watch Captain since he failed to identify himself to TM. So I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with that statement. Just saying ...

I'm juggling about a half dozen things at once, yet you feel that I'm having this discussion as if it's getting my undivided attention. Okay. If Zimmerman grabbed Martin, then Martin should have pulled away, if he's unable to do that, then striking Zimmerman wouldn't be out of the question, IMO. I don't believe much of anything Rachel Jeantel said, given her character, so that matters little to me. No matter what race she is, I'd look at it the same, given her behavior.

and yes, you're angry, because you aren't normally this hostile.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Let me rephrase that for you to see if this finally sinks in ...

"Killing someone isn't a crime, soldiers do it for a living, but if you do it out on the street you could be charged with murder."

OAW

Correct. In fact, I almost used that analogy myself, but would have had to use a lot of qualifiers and would have taken longer to type out.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Does that work for Zimmerman too? "Hey man, what's going on? Why are you beating on me? I'm just watching the neighborhood." If he had just tried that, then I'm sure the murderous hulk version of Martin that Zimmerman described would have ceased all aggression due to those questions.

I think once you reach a point where the guy is on top of you and hitting you, as the neighbor saw Martin doing, the situation changes dramatically.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Can we get the old, non-baiting, OAW back?

What do you mean - "back" ?

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Let me break this down to the very last compound for you. GZ shot and killed TM. That's a fact. It is undisputed. GZ admitted as much. If "killing isn't a crime" then GZ would have walked.

Let me break this down to the very last compound for you.

Zimmernann DID walk. F*^&ing Period.

-t

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'm juggling about a half dozen things at once, yet you feel that I'm having this discussion as if it's getting my undivided attention. Okay. If Zimmerman grabbed Martin [i.e. the bump Rachel Jeantel heard on the phone], then Martin should have pulled away [i.e. TM yelling "Get off! Get off!"], if he's unable to do that, then striking Zimmerman wouldn't be out of the question, IMO [i.e. punching GZ in the nose].

Now that wasn't so bad now was it?

So you acknowledge that would be a scenario in which TM would be justified to "stand his ground" so to speak. Which is admirable actually ... because I think you'd be surprised at the number of people who can't even conceive of a situation where TM would have been even remotely justified to strike GZ. Yet they are quick to argue that GZ was justified to shoot TM.

Originally Posted by Shaddim

I don't believe much of anything Rachel Jeantel said, given her character, so that matters little to me. No matter what race she is, I'd look at it the same, given her behavior.

You've made that much clear. You don't believe her. Obviously I do. Because for me I see no reason for her to lie about all that stuff I inserted in your statement. She certainly has less incentive to lie than GZ. It's not like she volunteered for all of this ... quite unlike a bunch of GZ witnesses. And it was his ass on the line with a murder case ... not hers. That being said, the main reason I believe her comes down to the fact that her descriptions of TM's movements are corroborated by GZ himself on the 911 tape. As well as the cell phone records. So clearly she was accurate about all of that. When she asked TM what did the man following him look like she said he said "A creepy ass cracka. And given the field day GZ supporters had with that they certainly didn't disbelieve that statement. So why does her credibility all of a sudden fall off a cliff when it comes to the last thing she said describing the initial confrontation between GZ and TM? Especially when it is uncontroverted by any other evidence? Not by a single witness, not by physical evidence, nothing. Even after being subject to the longest cross-examination of the entire trial IIRC. Well there is GZ's "word" .. but of course, quite unlike Ms. Jeantel he didn't place his rotund buttocks in the hot seat to see how well his story held up under cross-examination now did he? Just saying ...

Can it be proven that GZ grabbed TM and tried to detain him and TM punched in self-defense? Nope. But at the same time it can't be proven that TM punched GZ in the nose without provocation. There are no eyewitnesses or video tapes to corroborate either story. What we have is GZ's story and Ms. Jeantel's testimony ... and yes I highlighted the difference between them for a reason. We also have "state of mind" evidence ... GZ's "f*cking punks" and "these assholes they always get away" as he gets out to follow TM versus TM's running away in fear. We have GZ's numerous lies including his lying to the court about the state of his finances during his initial bond hearing, for which he got his initial bond revoked and his wife caught a perjury charge. We have his first statement in court being a lie during his so-called "apology" to TM's parents when he said that he thought TM was "just a little bit younger than me" ... when on the 911 tape he accurately described him as being in his "late teens". We have the ridiculous "TM circled the car" lie which was never mentioned on the 911 tape and was physically impossible to pull off in 3 seconds. We have the "I was headed back to my truck" lie when TM supposedly jumped him from in the darkness ... but GZ's whereabouts were unaccounted for during the 2 minutes between the time he hung up with 911 and the fight started ... even though it would have been 20-30 seconds max to reach his truck ... even less to reach the top of the T. We have GZ's changing story where in one telling he first sees TM one place walking down the street ... then the next time he places him in the "cut through" on the grass. How TM "looking AT" houses in one telling becomes "looking INTO" houses in the next. We have outright fabrications in his written statement of what he told the 911 dispatcher he was going to do when he got out of the car compared to what he actually said on the 911 tape. We have him claiming he couldn't remember a street name when there's only 3 in the neighborhood. We have him claiming he's getting out to go get an address around the block ... walking right past the address of the house he was parked in front of. We have his claims of having his head bashed into the concrete repeatedly versus the physical evidence of of two minor cuts that required a freaking bandaid. We have his claims of of being punched 25-30 times in the face versus the physical evidence that he took a few shots at most. We have his OWN ATTORNEY conceding in his closing argument that GZ exaggerated the level of ass-whooping TM bestowed upon him. We have GZ's claims that TM was straddling his chest when he pulled his gun ... when it would have been physically impossible for him to reach it if was holstered in his pants behind his back. ::::: Which tells me the gun was already out. And that "pushing down" motion John Goode saw when TM was on top ... remember he didn't see TM punching GZ ... perhaps TM trying to control GZ's gun arm to keep him from pointing it at him while screaming for help? :::: We have GZ's claims that TM was smothering his mouth and nose ... yet magically none of GZ's blood that was all over his nose and mouth in the picture they paraded in front of the jury repeatedly was found on TM's hands. And let's not forget that GZ claimed that he was getting his head bashed on the concrete right before he shot TM ... yet TM's body was found in the grass SEVERAL FEET away from the concrete. Not like a little bit in the grass and a little bit on the concrete.. We're talking NOWHERE NEAR the concrete. That's just a few of the credibility issues with GZ that I can recall off the top of my head.

Everything I just said in the paragraph above is factual. It's not my opinion. Other than the part in silver that is. It's either on the 911 tape, the police interview, his written statement, the video reenactment, or it came out in court. But given all of that, you choose to believe GZ's story about how the fight started nevertheless. As is your prerogative. Because the tweets of a teenage girl and her attitude on the stand towards Atty. West (who was hostile to her during the deposition process) apparently overrides all of that.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I think once you reach a point where the guy is on top of you and hitting you, as the neighbor saw Martin doing, the situation changes dramatically.

I really need to get going. Dinner with the wife at 7. But the neighbor ... John Goode .. specifically said he did NOT see TM hitting GZ. He say a "pushing down" motion. For the record.

OAW

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Now that wasn't so bad now was it?

Fictional, IMO, but whatever floats you.

So you acknowledge that would be a scenario in which TM would be justified to "stand his ground" so to speak. Which is admirable actually ... because I think you'd be surprised at the number of people who can't even conceive of a situation where TM would have been even remotely justified to strike GZ. Yet they are quick to argue that GZ was justified to shoot TM.

Of course, but I don't believe that was the case.

You've made that much clear. You don't believe her. Obviously I do. Because for me I see no reason for her to lie about all that stuff I inserted in your statement. She certainly has less incentive to lie than GZ. It's not like she volunteered for all of this ... quite unlike a bunch of GZ witnesses. And it was his ass on the line with a murder case ... not hers. That being said, the main reason I believe her comes down to the fact that her descriptions of TM's movements are corroborated by GZ himself on the 911 tape. As well as the cell phone records. So clearly she was accurate about all of that. When she asked TM what did the man following him look like she said he said "A creepy ass cracka. And given the field day GZ supporters had with that they certainly didn't disbelieve that statement. So why does her credibility all of a sudden fall off a cliff when it comes to the last thing she said describing the initial confrontation between GZ and TM? Especially when it is uncontroverted by any other evidence? Not by a single witness, not by physical evidence, nothing. Even after being subject to the longest cross-examination of the entire trial IIRC. Well there is GZ's "word" .. but of course, quite unlike Ms. Jeantel he didn't place his rotund buttocks in the hot seat to see how well his story held up under cross-examination now did he? Just saying ...

Can it be proven that GZ grabbed TM and tried to detain him and TM punched in self-defense? Nope. But at the same time it can't be proven that TM punched GZ in the nose without provocation. There are no eyewitnesses or video tapes to corroborate either story. What we have is GZ's story and Ms. Jeantel's testimony ... and yes I highlighted the difference between them for a reason. We also have "state of mind" evidence ... GZ's "f*cking punks" and "these assholes they always get away" as he gets out to follow TM versus TM's running away in fear. We have GZ's numerous lies including his lying to the court about the state of his finances during his initial bond hearing, for which he got his initial bond revoked and his wife caught a perjury charge. We have his first statement in court being a lie during his so-called "apology" to TM's parents when he said that he thought TM was "just a little bit younger than me" ... when on the 911 tape he accurately described him as being in his "late teens". We have the ridiculous "TM circled the car" lie which was never mentioned on the 911 tape and was physically impossible to pull off in 3 seconds. We have the "I was headed back to my truck" lie when TM supposedly jumped him from in the darkness ... but GZ's whereabouts were unaccounted for during the 2 minutes between the time he hung up with 911 and the fight started ... even though it would have been 20-30 seconds max to reach his truck ... even less to reach the top of the T. We have GZ's changing story where in one telling he first sees TM one place walking down the street ... then the next time he places him in the "cut through" on the grass. How TM "looking AT" houses in one telling becomes "looking INTO" houses in the next. We have outright fabrications in his written statement of what he told the 911 dispatcher he was going to do when he got out of the car compared to what he actually said on the 911 tape. We have him claiming he couldn't remember a street name when there's only 3 in the neighborhood. We have him claiming he's getting out to go get an address around the block ... walking right past the address of the house he was parked in front of. We have his claims of having his head bashed into the concrete repeatedly versus the physical evidence of of two minor cuts that required a freaking bandaid. We have his claims of of being punched 25-30 times in the face versus the physical evidence that he took a few shots at most. We have his OWN ATTORNEY conceding in his closing argument that GZ exaggerated the level of ass-whooping TM bestowed upon him. We have GZ's claims that TM was straddling his chest when he pulled his gun ... when it would have been physically impossible for him to reach it if was holstered in his pants behind his back. ::::: Which tells me the gun was already out. And that "pushing down" motion John Goode saw when TM was on top ... remember he didn't see TM punching GZ ... perhaps TM trying to control GZ's gun arm to keep him from pointing it at him while screaming for help? :::: We have GZ's claims that TM was smothering his mouth and nose ... yet magically none of GZ's blood that was all over his nose and mouth in the picture they paraded in front of the jury repeatedly was found on TM's hands. And let's not forget that GZ claimed that he was getting his head bashed on the concrete right before he shot TM ... yet TM's body was found in the grass SEVERAL FEET away from the concrete. Not like a little bit in the grass and a little bit on the concrete.. We're talking NOWHERE NEAR the concrete. That's just a few of the credibility issues with GZ that I can recall off the top of my head.

Everything I just said in the paragraph above is factual. It's not my opinion. Other than the part in silver that is. It's either on the 911 tape, the police interview, his written statement, the video reenactment, or it came out in court. But given all of that, you choose to believe GZ's story about how the fight started nevertheless. As is your prerogative. Because the tweets of a teenage girl and her attitude on the stand towards Atty. West (who was hostile to her during the deposition process) apparently overrides all of that.

OAW

Ugh, the avalanche to try and "win" by attrition, in the hopes a person will get sick of the conversation and walk away. All of those points have been brought up before. All of them. Yes, I find the statements and testimony of a drug abuser and drunk to be less than credible, due to personal experience with them. In fact, I'd say it was about the time those tweets were revealed, and then quickly deleted, that I started truly believing that Zimmerman wasn't guilty. I believe she sat down with another party and they told her what would be best for her to say, to line up with what scant evidence they had.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I really need to get going. Dinner with the wife at 7. But the neighbor ... John Goode .. specifically said he did NOT see TM hitting GZ. He say a "pushing down" motion. For the record.

OAW

Actually, now that I went back and read it again, Good says he thought it was Zimmerman, the guy on the bottom, calling for help, and...

The altercation seemed to escalate, according to Good. The struggle moved to the cement pathway, and he said the person in dark clothing straddled the other man in a "mixed martial arts position" he later described to police as a "ground and pound." He said he saw "arm movements going downward," though he couldn't be certain the person on top was striking the person on the bottom.

"The person you now know to be Trayvon Martin was on top, correct?" asked defense attorney Mark O'Mara. "He was the one raining blows down on George Zimmerman, correct?"

"That's what it looked like," Good answered.

You twisted a lot of that around to suit you, because what I quoted above was the account from the courtroom. Why do that?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I already said that, maybe you missed it so I'll say it again: even when the burden is on the defense (because the defense is making the affirmation), the burden is lower. It's not "beyond a reasonable doubt", it never is for the defense. It's a lower burden than the prosecution had.

I don't know if I can say this any clearer. An affirmative defense is an excuse to a crime. The state must first prove a crime has been committed, and in this case they failed to do that. There are (at least) two components to a murder statute, the act and intent/negligence. The state had no evidence on the second, crucial piece to this puzzle, thus the defense did not have to prove anything to any standard, because the charges themselves did not have enough evidence to support a conviction.

I'm not following you here. Can you give an example?

The prosecution must provide all components to a charge they levy against a person. This means they need to prove the act (not in question here) and also fulfill the intent/negligence aspect of the statute.

Originally Posted by wiki

Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter).

The prosecution utterly failed to provide any grounds with which the jury could find intent or malice aforethought. They didn't have enough evidence to convict even if Zimmerman's lawyers never even showed up.

That doesn't make any sense at all. There was plenty of proof that Zimmerman killed Martin. That killing would most certainly have been illegal without an affirmative defense. Please explain how it could have been "not a crime" without any affirmative defense.

Because equally as important to the act is the intent. Was it malice? Negligence? Involuntary? The prosecution couldn't provide any evidence to suggest intent to murder, as is required in common law based 2nd degree murder charges. They couldn't even provide a theory that made sense.

Homicide in and of itself is proof of a crime, unless there is an affirmative defense to it.

You misunderstand the law, good sir. Homicide is not in itself proof of a crime. Anywhere. Otherwise workplace accidents would lead to murder convictions. Car accidents would see capital punishment. Hell, all of our police would be in jail for life.

You must prove intent (usually via a motive or circumstances that imply such an intent).

Without any affirmative defense, the Martin killing would have lead to a conviction.

Zimmerman could have stayed home. The simple fact of the matter is that the prosecution didn't have a case to begin with.

In what way was the evidence insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin, without using an affirmative defense?

Killed or murdered? Because murder, under our laws, has a different meaning then you and I use it in everyday life. A small but important distinction.

Both sides are responsible for lack of evidence,

Sorry man, this is just plain incorrect.

if they are making an affirmation. Usually only the prosecution makes affirmations. Only in those rare cases called affirmative defenses, does the defense make an affirmation.

Right, in response to an affirmation the prosecution made (i.e. the charge). The state couldn't put their affirmation together to the standard of the law, therefore the defense didn't really need to prove theirs. So it didn't matter what the juror's thought actually happened, they were required by law to acquit because the prosecution did not prove their case.

There was plenty to prove a killing happened, and who-dunnit. How is that not a standard murder conviction? The only way it was non-standard was the claim of self-defense. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. I have literally no idea how you are claiming that an affirmative defense didn't have to be made in order to escape a conviction.

The conviction is never the default state, man. In a trial the prosecution must prove the charges against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. An affirmative defense can be used as an "excuse" to a crime that the state is proving against the defendant. The prosecutors never got that far, because they could not prove murder with or without an affirmative defense from Zimmerman GZ had no burden of proof because the state could not prove their case.

^^^ Makes literally no sense. Can you give an example of this "it's when" scenario please, to help me understand what you're saying? Because this example isn't making sense vvv

Originally Posted by wiki

Under U.S. federal law, murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.[3] Malice can be expressed (intent to kill) or implied. Implied malice is proven by acts that involve reckless indifference to human life or in a death that occurs during the commission of certain felonies (the felony murder rule). The exact terms of the felony murder vary tremendously from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Life sentencing for murder in the United States has a mean of 349 months (29 years one month) and a median of 480 months (40 years).[4]

Can you tell me what evidence the state presented at trial that demonstrates malice aforethought?

They didn't have a case, Uncy.


--

I think the rest of the post is pretty much going to have the same underlying argument, so if you don't mind I'm going to skip the rest of it. I'll be happy to come back to it if there's still something you want me to address.

[ghporter]

The Florida Homicide Statute explained.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You twisted a lot of that around to suit you, because what I quoted above was the account from the courtroom. Why do that?

Ahhh... the million dollar question. I suspect the answer is to bolster a presupposition having little regard for actual evidence.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The Florida Homicide Statute explained.

Thanks Glenn.

Uncle, give that article a read. It explains the law better then I can.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Yes, after reading Rachel Jeantel's tweets (constant talk of getting drunk and abusing drugs, with smatterings of racial remarks) and seeing her body language, I'm much less inclined to believe her testimony. I think she was committing perjury on the stand, and likely didn't understand the gravity of it. AND, even though Zimmerman's facts weren't 100% consistent, IMO his telling of the events, combined with the neighbor seeing him on the bottom during the struggle with Martin (corroboration), is the more likely sequence of events.

It's what she didn't say that is important. Rachel Jeantel may have had a hand in what happened. She most likely goaded TM into confronting GM.


I know some of you hate watching videos, if true, this will make any lawsuit trial interesting.

AFTERBURNER w/ BILL WHITTLE: The Lynching - YouTube

And don't forget, this is who the media wants you to believe GZ shot.


Closer to the truth


Than this.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Please explain how it could have been "not a crime" without any affirmative defense.

Because equally as important to the act is the intent. Was it malice? Negligence? Involuntary? The prosecution couldn't provide any evidence to suggest intent to murder, as is required in common law based 2nd degree murder charges. They couldn't even provide a theory that made sense.

You misunderstand the law, good sir. Homicide is not in itself proof of a crime. Anywhere. Otherwise workplace accidents would lead to murder convictions. Car accidents would see capital punishment. Hell, all of our police would be in jail for life.

I don't think you are answering what I am asking. Please answer this simple binary question:

If this case was not self-defense, it would have been a crime (not necessarily first-degree murder, but some crime). True or false?

(And if true, what crime would you think it probably is, assuming for the moment that it was objectively not self-defense?)

I don't know if I can say this any clearer. An affirmative defense is an excuse to a crime. The state must first prove a crime has been committed, and in this case they failed to do that.

Let me point out that I am not talking about any mistakes in the prosecution's performance in this case, I am only talking about whether the actual law is a loophole.

There are (at least) two components to a murder statute, the act and intent/negligence.
...
The prosecution couldn't provide any evidence to suggest intent to murder, as is required in common law based 2nd degree murder charges.
...
Killed or murdered? Because murder, under our laws, has a different meaning then you and I use it in everyday life.
...
therwise workplace accidents would lead to murder convictions.
...
b]The prosecutors never got that far, because they could not prove murder with or without an affirmative defense from Zimmerman[/b]

I think you are moving the goalposts. First you said he couldn't have been shown to commit a crime (you didn't use the word "murder" before this post in our exchange, I just checked), now you're saying couldn't show murder and citing the requirements for murder over other crimes. Was it a crime or not?

The prosecution must provide all components to a charge they levy against a person. This means they need to prove the act (not in question here) and also fulfill the intent/negligence aspect of the statute.

At the moment he pulled the trigger, his intent was to cause potentially deadly harm to the person he was pointing it at. Do you deny this? Has anyone denied this?

This wasn't an accidental discharge, or a miss. Or are you claiming it was?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The Florida Homicide Statute explained.

Thanks Glenn.

Uncle, give that article a read. It explains the law better then I can.

That article supports everything I have said:
1. If this case was not self-defense, then it would have been a crime
1a. That crime would be murder (second-degree)
2. Self-defense is an affirmative defense
3. The standard of proof for self-defense in Florida is a divergence from common law (and common sense), in that a defendant using an affirmative defense doesn't need to prove it (even under the lower standard of preponderance of evidence).

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I don't think you are answering what I am asking. Please answer this simple binary question:

If this case was not self-defense, it would have been a crime (not necessarily first-degree murder, but some crime). True or false?

That's sort of a loaded question Unc. Akin to saying "If Trayvon Martin hadn't died, it wouldn't have made the news." Something would have had to happen differently, because it wasn't a crime and a trial proved that.

(And if true, what crime would you think it probably is, assuming for the moment that it was objectively not self-defense?)

What crime do I think it is? You want me to make one up?

A murder charge requires "...evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual."

What evidence did the prosecution present that demonstrated "a depraved mind regardless of human life" ?

Again, this is the question the trial was supposed answer.

Let me point out that I am not talking about any mistakes in the prosecution's performance in this case, I am only talking about whether the actual law is a loophole.

It's not. It's how our judicial system has operated since the beginning of our country. That the prosecution happened to not have enough evidence to even put together a coherent theory of the crime does not equal "a loophole".

I think you are moving the goalposts. First you said he couldn't have been shown to commit a crime (you didn't use the word "murder" before this post in our exchange, I just checked), now you're saying couldn't show murder and citing the requirements for murder over other crimes. Was it a crime or not?

Moving the goalposts? There is only one crime in question here: 2nd Degree murder, which GZ was charged with. And, as I've said previously, what crime do you think GZ committed?

At the moment he pulled the trigger, his intent was to cause potentially deadly harm to the person he was pointing it at. Do you deny this? Has anyone denied this?

Yes, GZ has. The definition of murder requires you to prove murder, not ask "What's missing to nail this bastard?" That is the only purpose of the trial.

This wasn't an accidental discharge, or a miss. Or are you claiming it was?

No one has to claim it. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ "...evinced a depraved mind reglardless of human life." The burden is not on the defense to show there wasn't a crime (though they may do so as part of their defense). The burden is on the state to show that a crime happened, which they could not do.

Can you show me where, at GZ's trial, this was demonstrated?

That article supports everything I have said:
1. If this case was not self-defense, then it would have been a crime

So basically: "If this was a crime, it would have been a crime?"

Our legal system is setup to avoid "what ifs" and that's exactly the line of reasoning you're trying to use.

1a. That crime would be murder (second-degree)

Can you demonstrate GZ's malice aforethought? You need that for 2nd degree murder. There's no way around that, Unc.

2. Self-defense is an affirmative defense

Again, in order to arrive to that conclusion you're assuming GZ would have otherwise been convicted of 2nd degree murder. I'm saying the State didn't meet the burden of proof so the premise of your argument is in a false vacuum - the state never got far enough with their case for this to be a question.

3. The standard of proof for self-defense in Florida is a divergence from common law (and common sense), in that a defendant using an affirmative defense doesn't need to prove it (even under the lower standard of preponderance of evidence).

That's not how it works anywhere man. I don't know if you're willfully ignoring the foundation of our legal system, or you just think it's unfair in this situation. These aren't my own personal opinions on the matter, this is how our judicial system works just about everywhere. I'm not making this stuff up

You have to be able to prove a crime to get a conviction. No exceptions, no special circumstances, no what-ifs. In any court everywhere across america, a conviction needs proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime (and all conditions of that crime) are satisfied. if you cannot prove one component of the crime (in this case malice aforethought) you cannot prove the crime, which is exactly what happened here.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

That's sort of a loaded question Unc. Akin to saying "If Trayvon Martin hadn't died, it wouldn't have made the news." Something would have had to happen differently, because it wasn't a crime and a trial proved that.

Then I'm calling bullshit on your claim that this wasn't a crime before self-defense was raised.

What crime do I think it is? You want me to make one up?

Don't be an idiot. The sentence started with "if true, ..." Don't you know what "if" means? You can't refuse to answer "true or false" and then play dumb with the inapplicability of an "if true" statement referring to it.

A murder charge requires "...evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual."

What evidence did the prosecution present that demonstrated "a depraved mind regardless of human life" ?

He intentionally killed someone by intentionally pulling the trigger. If that doesn't meet your standard for the action being intentional, then what does meet your standard? If a mugger shoots someone, can they just claim it was not their intention, and you would let them free knowing there is no way to disprove this outlandish claim?

Again, this is the question the trial was supposed answer.

The trial took self-defense into consideration. You didn't. I'm pressing you on that, not on the more-inclusive question of the trial.

It's not. It's how our judicial system has operated since the beginning of our country. That the prosecution happened to not have enough evidence to even put together a coherent theory of the crime does not equal "a loophole".

They had enough evidence of a crime except for the affirmative defense. They didn't have enough evidence to prove a negative (to disprove and affirmative defense). I consider it a loophole that he who affirms doesn't bear the burden of proof.

Moving the goalposts? There is only one crime in question here: 2nd Degree murder, which GZ was charged with.

No there isn't. The jury was allowed to consider lesser included crimes (like manslaughter).

And, as I've said previously, what crime do you think GZ committed?

What I think is he committed murder because I don't believe his self-defense claim, based on the evidence I'm aware of.
But I'm not asking you what you think happened including self-defense. I'm asking you to justify your unbelievable claim that there was no crime here even without the self-defense claim.

At the moment he pulled the trigger, his intent was to cause potentially deadly harm to the person he was pointing it at. Do you deny this? Has anyone denied this?

Yes, GZ has.

WTF? When?

No one has to claim it. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ "...evinced a depraved mind reglardless of human life." The burden is not on the defense to show there wasn't a crime (though they may do so as part of their defense). The burden is on the state to show that a crime happened, which they could not do.

Can you show me where, at GZ's trial, this was demonstrated?

I don't think the prosecution is required to show evidence of any facts that are stipulated by both sides. It was not disputed that Zimmerman pulled the trigger, on purpose, pointing it at victim, on purpose. In fact, I would expect stipulating to that would be a pre-requisite to submitting a claim of self-defense. But maybe not in Florida

So basically: "If this was a crime, it would have been a crime?"

That's your claim that I'm refuting! You claimed that he never had to excuse it with self-defense because there was nothing to excuse, because "it never got that far."

Our legal system is setup to avoid "what ifs" and that's exactly the line of reasoning you're trying to use.

Wrong. The entire premise of having a legal system, any legal system, is to answer "what ifs" like "what if someone kills you for your wallet?" and "what can we do to deter crime without false positives?" That's the question I'm investigating: not what to do with Zimmerman, but what this means for all murders in Florida.

Can you demonstrate GZ's malice aforethought? You need that for 2nd degree murder.

No you don't. You yourself just posted the definition of second degree murder in Florida that contradicts it: "although without any premeditated design"

Again, in order to arrive to that conclusion you're assuming GZ would have otherwise been convicted of 2nd degree murder.

No, that's just the definition. It's corroborated in the article Glenn linked that you endorsed: When a defendant uses self defense as a defense it is called an affirmative defense.

That's not how it works anywhere man. I don't know if you're willfully ignoring the foundation of our legal system, or you just think it's unfair in this situation. These aren't my own personal opinions on the matter, this is how our judicial system works just about everywhere. I'm not making this stuff up

So you're saying Shaddim pulled that latin straight out of his ass, and it has no historical merit?

You have to be able to prove a crime to get a conviction.

Manslaughter is a crime. There was definitely enough proof of manslaughter, and probably second degree murder (if you ignore self-defense, which is your claim that I'm refuting).

No exceptions, no special circumstances, no what-ifs.

Yes, affirmative defenses are exceptions. If you disagree, then explain what the definition of an affirmative defense is, and why they are distinguished from other defenses. Because in reality, that is what defines affirmative defenses, so if you take that away then they wouldn't even exist.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Then I'm calling bullshit on your claim that this wasn't a crime before self-defense was raised.

Okay, prove it. What evidence was prevented that satisfies the murder statue?

1. The act of killing (i concede)
2. Malice aforethought (still waiting for you to address this)

Don't be an idiot.

Don't get nasty because you're losing an argument. I haven't been nasty with you.

The sentence started with "if true, ..." Don't you know what "if" means? You can't refuse to answer "true or false" and then play dumb with the inapplicability of an "if true" statement referring to it.

I'm rejecting your false premise. "If" doesn't apply because your "if" doesn't exist in our judicial system. Anywhere.

He intentionally killed someone by intentionally pulling the trigger. If that doesn't meet your standard for the action being intentional, then what does meet your standard?

The standard that is outlined in our due process laws.

If a mugger shoots someone, can they just claim it was not their intention, and you would let them free knowing there is no way to disprove this outlandish claim?

No, because mugging is the "malice aforethought" that you've still yet to address. It's implied, and clearly outlined in the documentation glenn and I have provided.

The trial took self-defense into consideration.

Yes, but the reason for acquittal was the state did not meet their burden. The defense defended all the same.

You didn't. I'm pressing you on that, not on the more-inclusive question of the trial.

Again, our judicial system is set up where the burden is on the state to prove a charge against somebody. You're trying to shift that burden to the defense to muster outrage that GZ didn't go to jail.

They had enough evidence of a crime

Can you please demonstrate the "...evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life" evidence the state provided at trial so we can move on already?

They didn't have enough evidence to prove a negative (to disprove and affirmative defense). I consider it a loophole that he who affirms doesn't bear the burden of proof.

What are you smoking man?

The state couldn't prove an affirmation (the charge). They didn't get a chance to disprove the defense because they couldn't even fulfill the burden of proof for the charge they levied. What's tripping you up here is the prosecution was so woefully underprepared that their attempt to use Rachel Jeantel as their proof of "malice aforethought" missed the boat completely and only raised further doubts in the minds of the jury.

No there isn't. The jury was allowed to consider lesser included crimes (like manslaughter).

Great, once you've grasped the way the American judicial system works, we can talk about why manslaughter wasn't appropriate either. I'll give you a hint: It's the same reason - the state could not provide one shred of evidence that GZ acted with malicious intent, reckless endangerment with reasonable foresight to the killing or gross negligence, all of which have clearly defined legal definitions that are well accepted in courtrooms across America.

What I think is he committed murder because I don't believe his self-defense claim, based on the evidence I'm aware of.

Great. Still not enough for a murder conviction (or manslaughter for that matter).

But I'm not asking you what you think happened including self-defense. I'm asking you to justify your unbelievable claim that there was no crime here even without the self-defense claim.

For the fifth time man:

Please demonstrate what evidence and/or testimony the state provided that you consider to fulfill the "malice aforethought" requirement, which is necessary for conviction

I also never said there was no crime. I said no crime could be proven in a court of law. A big distinction but well in line with due process and habeas corpus as defined in the US of A.

WTF? When?

George Zimmerman pleaded not guilty in Trayvon Martin shooting - Los Angeles Times

I don't think the prosecution is required to show evidence of any facts that are stipulated by both sides. It was not disputed that Zimmerman pulled the trigger, on purpose, pointing it at victim, on purpose. In fact, I would expect stipulating to that would be a pre-requisite to submitting a claim of self-defense. But maybe not in Florida

You're still avoiding it. For the fifth time, please demonstrate where the state provided evidence to support the charge they levied against GZ. If you remember (you should by now):

1)"the unlawful killing of a human being,..."

and

2)"...when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life"

How did the state fulfill #2 of that statute?

That's your claim that I'm refuting! You claimed that he never had to excuse it with self-defense because there was nothing to excuse, because "it never got that far."

Good god man. The state did not meet their burden. I can't make it any simpler then that. The state Always has a burden to prove their charge beyond a reasonable doubt

Source:
Presumption of innocence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So follow me here.

Originally Posted by wiki

The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted.

This applies: Always.
This doesn't apply: Never.

So let's apply that to this case:

Charge: 2nd degree murder.

Requirements to convict:

1. Killing...
2. ...when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life

Can you please demonstrate how the state met those requirements? What evidence did they present that implies GZ's "depraved mind" beyond a reasonable doubt?

Wrong.

200+ years of court precedent and doctrine disagrees with you here.

The entire premise of having a legal system, any legal system, is to answer "what ifs" like "what if someone kills you for your wallet?" and "what can we do to deter crime without false positives?" That's the question I'm investigating: not what to do with Zimmerman, but what this means for all murders in Florida.

No man, it's there to bring people to justice in case a what if actually happens. The courts never concern themselves with what ifs. Only what happened(s). That's why hearsay is inadmissible. That's why improperly obtained evidence gets excluded.

No you don't. You yourself just posted the definition of second degree murder in Florida that contradicts it: "although without any premeditated design"

Right, but you still have to show intent, defined in Florida as "...when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life"

Can you please please pretty please with sugar on top address how the state proved that aspect of the law?

No, that's just the definition. It's corroborated in the article Glenn linked that you endorsed: When a defendant uses self defense as a defense it is called an affirmative defense.

Best advice I can give you is to take a course on criminal law at UMD. Again, these aren't my suppositions. This is based on the foundation of our legal system.

So you're saying Shaddim pulled that latin straight out of his ass, and it has no historical merit?

I'll be honest here I haven't read Shaddim's post, and nowhere referenced it in mine.

Manslaughter is a crime. There was definitely enough proof of manslaughter,

Dude, fncking prove it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Manslaughter charge:

1. Unlawful killing
2. Gross negligence or wreckless endangerment that reasonably could be foreseen to result in death.

Please demonstrate the above highlighted requirement of a manslaughter conviction.

and probably second degree murder (if you ignore self-defense, which is your claim that I'm refuting).

I'm not claiming anything here man, I'm just explaining how a criminal trial works, and how it worked in this situation. There is nothing in my posts which is anything more then an outline of how criminal trials work.

Yes, affirmative defenses are exceptions. If you disagree, then explain what the definition of an affirmative defense is, and why they are distinguished from other defenses. Because in reality, that is what defines affirmative defenses, so if you take that away then they wouldn't even exist.

Originally Posted by wiki

An affirmative defense is a complete or partial defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal procedure that affirms the complaint or charges but raises facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, would defeat or reduce a claim even if the allegations alleged are all proven.

They didn't even prove their allegation. The defense never affirmed the prosecutions charges, therefor making an affirmative defense "not applicable"

Had the prosecution put together enough of a case to convict, providing for the legal burden of proof on a murder charge, then GZ would have had to use an affirmative defense.

The prosecution simply couldn't provide evidence for their charge. It's that freaking simple.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Okay, prove it. What evidence was prevented that satisfies the murder statue?

I said "crime" and you converted it to "murder." You've done this many times now. Do you understand that there are crimes that aren't murders? Maybe this is why you keep saying things that appear to be nonsense, because you use these two words interchangeably where you come from?

PS it's "statuTe" not "statue"

1. The act of killing (i concede)
2. Malice aforethought (still waiting for you to address this)

What is it you think "malice aforethought" means? Because the definition of second degree murder that you posted explicitly excludes premeditation from being a prerequisite.

Don't get nasty because you're losing an argument. I haven't been nasty with you.

When you chop up sentences just so you can point out the absence of the part you just chopped off, that is considered rude by many.

I'm rejecting your false premise. "If" doesn't apply because your "if" doesn't exist in our judicial system. Anywhere.

1) Of course it does. You can't have any system of logic without "if". (exercise: search this page for " if": Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine )
2) We are talking about things both inside and outside the legal system. We can't make value judgements about a thing (the legal system) without comparing it to other things outside of itself, including hypothetical or theoretical things.
3) You brought it up. You're the one who made the outlandish claim that this case wouldn't even be a crime "if" there was no self-defense involved.

No man, it's there to bring people to justice in case a what if actually happens. The courts never concern themselves with what ifs. Only what happened(s). That's why hearsay is inadmissible. That's why improperly obtained evidence gets excluded.

We're not a court. We are evaluating the effectiveness of the courts. We use "what ifs" to conduct that evaluation, because it is the best method of doing so.

Great. Still not enough for a murder conviction (or manslaughter for that matter).

Obviously anonymous internet decisions aren't enough for convictions. Why did you ask if that was your expectation?

The standard that is outlined in our due process laws.
No, because mugging is the "malice aforethought" that you've still yet to address. It's implied, and clearly outlined in the documentation glenn and I have provided.

"Malice aforethought" isn't an element of second-degree murder! YOU're the one who cited that part!

Malice aforethought means premeditation, meanwhile (as YOU cited), second degree murder (in Florida) is "although without any premeditated design."

They had enough evidence of a crime

Can you please demonstrate the "...evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life" evidence the state provided at trial so we can move on already?

1. You point a gun at someone
2. You intentionally pull the trigger.
3. IF ( your favorite word) you are snow-i, this is perfectly normal, but otherwise this constitutes a depraved mind regardless of human life. QED.

we can talk about why manslaughter wasn't appropriate either. I'll give you a hint: It's the same reason - the state could not provide one shred of evidence that GZ acted with malicious intent, reckless endangerment with reasonable foresight to the killing or gross negligence,

I can't wait to hear this one

For the fifth time man:

Please demonstrate what evidence and/or testimony the state provided that you consider to fulfill the "malice aforethought" requirement, which is necessary for conviction

Again, I need to know what skewed definition of "malice aforethought" you're working from, if my sixth answer is going to be any more effective than my first five were.

I also never said there was no crime. I said no crime could be proven in a court of law.

... even without the self-defense claim.

I'm not claiming anything here man, I'm just explaining how a criminal trial works, and how it worked in this situation. There is nothing in my posts which is anything more then an outline of how criminal trials work.

Except the part where you claim it would be the same even without ever referring to self-defense.

<when did zimmerman deny pulling the trigger on purpose, to cause potentially deadly harm on purpose?>

George Zimmerman pleaded not guilty in Trayvon Martin shooting - Los Angeles Times

Haha! So you think that pleading "not guilty" means claiming you didn't do it intentionally? Despite the fact that the defense lawyer stated that Zimmerman shot Martin in self defense (necessitates intent)? That's....

... this is about where I realized you must be trolling me...

You're still avoiding it. For the fifth time, please demonstrate where the state provided evidence to support the charge they levied against GZ. If you remember (you should by now):

1)"the unlawful killing of a human being,..."

and

2)"...when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life"

How did the state fulfill #2 of that statute?

In the defense's opening arguments, they admit that the defendant made an intentional decision to kill the victim (in self-defense). It would make no sense for the prosecutor to present evidence proving what the defense already admitted to.

Good god man. The state did not meet their burden. I can't make it any simpler then that. The state Always has a burden to prove their charge beyond a reasonable doubt

Source:
Presumption of innocence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So follow me here.



This applies: Always.
This doesn't apply: Never.

So let's apply that to this case:

Charge: 2nd degree murder.

Requirements to convict:

1. Killing...
2. ...when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life

Can you please demonstrate how the state met those requirements? What evidence did they present that implies GZ's "depraved mind" beyond a reasonable doubt?

The evidence was presented by the defense, during the opening arguments.

Right, but you still have to show intent, defined in Florida as "...when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life"

Can you please please pretty please with sugar on top address how the state proved that aspect of the law?

The defense did it during their opening arguments, when they admitted that Zimmerman intentionally shot the victim to death (in self-defense).

They didn't even prove their allegation. The defense never affirmed the prosecutions charges

Are you sure? Not even in the defense's opening statements?

Best advice I can give you is to take a course on criminal law at UMD. Again, these aren't my suppositions. This is based on the foundation of our legal system.

Appeal to authority is an excellent trolling tool.

I'll be honest here I haven't read Shaddim's post, and nowhere referenced it in mine.

It's an easy one:
http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...4/#post4240239

I can't wait to hear the ways you think it's inaccurate.

Dude, fncking prove it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Manslaughter charge:

1. Unlawful killing
2. Gross negligence or wreckless endangerment that reasonably could be foreseen to result in death.

Please demonstrate the above highlighted requirement of a manslaughter conviction.

If deciding to shoot someone at point blank in the chest isn't manslaughter, then you need to troll a lot harder. That doesn't even tickle.

This was proved in the trial during the opening arguments, when the defense admitted that it happened. From then on, the trial was focused on the affirmative defense.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I said "crime" and you converted it to "murder." You've done this many times now. Do you understand that there are crimes that aren't murders? Maybe this is why you keep saying things that appear to be nonsense, because you use these two words interchangeably where you come from?

Well he was charged with Murder, so my apologies for narrowing my responses to that. If you think he was guilty of another crime (aside from manslaughter, as we was up on that too) I'd be happy to discuss with you. They might have had a chance on negligent homicide or wreckless endangerment but that would have been a stretch as well.

PS it's "statuTe" not "statue"

sorry man, typing fast and not proofreading as well as I could. Forgive me?

What is it you think "malice aforethought" means? Because the definition of second degree murder that you posted explicitly excludes premeditation from being a prerequisite.

Pre meditation and malice aforethought are two different things. Malice aforethought can happen in a given situation, whereas premeditation usually requires evidence that the murder was planned before the incident happened. i.e. I picked a fight with him and killed him as a result would be malice aforethought but not necessarily premeditation unless you can show that the plan all along was to murder. You can't argue self-defense (even though you didn't originally plan to murder) because your intentions to fight constitutes malice aforethought.

When you chop up sentences just so you can point out the absence of the part you just chopped off, that is considered rude by many.

My apologies. I'm not trying to be rude, Uncle. I apologize if I'm coming across that way. I respect you as a poster and as a critical thinker. Let me state that for the record.

1) Of course it does. You can't have any system of logic without "if". (exercise: search this page for " if":
[url=http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-[/url]

I'm not going to argue semantics against the United States entire legal system. Maybe we should do away with the presumption of innocence then?

2) We are talking about things both inside and outside the legal system. We can't make value judgements about a thing. (the legal system) without comparing it to other things outside of itself, including hypothetical or theoretical things.

Don't you think this is moving the goalposts a bit? I am concerned with why GZ had to be acquitted given the evidence. If you have another aim (besides hypotheticals that upend the foundation of our judicial system) I'm all for discussing them on whatever level you would like. I would just like to make sure we're talking from the same frame of reference here.

3) You brought it up. You're the one who made the outlandish claim that this case wouldn't even be a crime "if" there was no self-defense involved.

Come on man, this is dishonest. It is not outlandish to state that GZ must have been found not guilty since the prosecution could not prove their case.

We're not a court. We are evaluating the effectiveness of the courts. We use "what ifs" to conduct that evaluation, because it is the best method of doing so.

Since when are we evaluating the effectiveness of the court? Perhaps the law as its written but not the court. Those are two separate entities and "common law" as you've cited works exactly as I've stated. The courts interpret the law, and allow me to guess but I think your beef is that murder is defined too narrowly for such situations, and that no charge exists to punish those who take another's life because they acted stupidly (but not negligently, or with malice, or without regard to the consequences of their actions.

Obviously anonymous internet decisions aren't enough for convictions. Why did you ask if that was your expectation?

Because if you can't address that, there is no argument. To have found GZ guilty would have been a travesty to our "presumption of innocence" precedent and would have dire consequences across every criminal statute.

"Malice aforethought" isn't an element of second-degree murder! YOU're the one who cited that part!

You're still dodging my question. I don't appreciate it. I'll ask for the (eigth, ninth?) time:

Please demonstrate where the state proved GZ to be acting with:

"...evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life"

Which is florida's language for the doctrine of malice aforethought

Malice aforethought means premeditation, meanwhile (as YOU cited), second degree murder (in Florida) is "although without any premeditated design."

No it doesn't. You're reaching here man. I can't help you. Malice aforethought is not premeditation.

1. You point a gun at someone
2. You intentionally pull the trigger.
3. IF ( your favorite word) you are snow-i, this is perfectly normal, but otherwise this constitutes a depraved mind regardless of human life. QED.

[/quote]

What's the context, Uncle? Am I in Afghanistan? Am I a cop responding to a felony? Is that someone point a gun at me?

The reason the law is written as such is to account for such situations, including self-defense.

Again, I need to know what skewed definition of "malice aforethought" you're working from, if my sixth answer is going to be any more effective than my first five were.

Okay, here's the definition as written in FL's 2nd degree murder statute.

"...evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life"

Haha! So you think that pleading "not guilty" means claiming you didn't do it intentionally? Despite the fact that the defense lawyer stated that Zimmerman shot Martin in self defense (necessitates intent)? That's....

You have a severe misunderstanding of how a criminal trial works in the United State. You don't plead innocent. You plead "not guilty" meaning you don't believe the state can prove it's charges against you.

... this is about where I realized you must be trolling me...

http://www.ccjs.umd.edu/content/ccjs-courses
Start here.

In the defense's opening arguments, they admit that the defendant made an intentional decision to kill the victim (in self-defense). It would make no sense for the prosecutor to present evidence proving what the defense already admitted to.

"...evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life"

Where was that admitted or proved by either the prosecution or the defense?

The evidence was presented by the defense, during the opening arguments.

"...evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life"

The defense did it during their opening arguments, when they admitted that Zimmerman intentionally shot the victim to death (in self-defense).

"...evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life"

Are you sure? Not even in the defense's opening statements?

"...evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life"

Appeal to authority is an excellent trolling tool.

"...evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life"

If deciding to shoot someone at point blank in the chest isn't manslaughter, then you need to troll a lot harder. That doesn't even tickle.

"...evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life"

This was proved in the trial during the opening arguments, when the defense admitted that it happened. From then on, the trial was focused on the affirmative defense.

"...evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life"



All of my answers will now be "...evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life" until you can demonstrate how the prosecution fulfilled that burden. The defense never admitted to it. The prosecution never proved it. You've still not demonstrated how at the trial the state was able to demonstrate "...evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life" and I can't help you anymore with explaining how a criminal trial works in the United States. I've done the best I can do


I think at this point it's obvious you don't have an answer for demonstrating GZ's "...evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life", and you're looking for ways around it based on "morals" and "values" that don't have anything to do with the court case. If you want to talk morals and values I'm all ears but as far as the criminal proceedings go, your outrage at a not guilty verdict is obviously rooted in a severe misunderstanding of how criminal trials work in America. Unless you want to reframe the debate as a moral or ethical argument (with no reference to the court proceedings) I'm going to refrain from posting anymore. There's just nothing more I can do until you take it upon yourself to learn how such a trial operates at a fundamental level.


I found my Criminal Justice courses at Maryland to be extremely interesting and fun. If you have a chance to take a few of those courses, I'd really recommend it. I'm not trying to be snarky here with this statement, I'd really encourage you to explore it if it interests you. I found that it expanded my horizons quite a bit, and it made reviewing big media trials such as OJ and Drew Peterson much more fascinating then I had previously thought.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You twisted a lot of that around to suit you, because what I quoted above was the account from the courtroom. Why do that?

Twisted what?

He said he saw "arm movements going downward," though he couldn't be certain the person on top was striking the person on the bottom.

But if that's not good enough let's get the transcript:

O’Mara: Just to clarify what was actually talked about with Chris Serino, Investigator Serino, during this, we’re going to call it for the moment the Ground-and-Pound conversation. We have a rule called completeness, so what I want to do is put it in context for you, ask you if this is what you said to Chris Serino. OK?

“Yeah I pretty much heard somebody yelling outside. I wasn’t sure if it was, you know, a fight or something going wrong. So I opened my blinds and I see kind of like a person out there. I didn’t know if it was a dog attack or something. So I open my door. It was a black man with a black hoodie on top of the other, either a white guy or now I found out I think it was a Hispanic guy with a red sweatshirt on the ground yelling out help! And I tried to tell them, get out of here, you know, stop or whatever, and then one guy on top in the black hoodie was pretty much just throwing down blows on the guy kind of MMA-style.”

Is that the context in which that happened?

Good: Yes.

O’Mara: And then Investigator Serino said, a word that I have, and the transcripts may differ, ground, couldn’t figure it, maybe he said Ground-and-Pound, and then you said:

“Yeah, like a Ground-and-Pound on the concrete at this point, so at this point I told him I’m calling 911.”

BDLR: Objection. Improper bolstering.

O’Mara: I’m at the end of it. Is that–

Judge: There’s an objection and the objection is . . .

BDLR: Hearsay and improper bolstering

O’Mara: I would suggest that rule 108, which is the rule of completeness, suggests that because they brought in part of it . . . and iI’m speaking, I apologize.

Judge: The objection as to hearsay is overruled. Bolstering is not the right objection either, so that’s OK.

BDLR: Beyond the scope of cross-examination to that point

Judge: I overrule on that objection, also, so go ahead.

O’Mara: That’s what you said.

Good: The whole thing, yes

O’Mara: And that was the context in which the words Ground-and-Pound came out.

Good: Yes, for more clarification.

O’Mara: OK. And do you stand by that today, that what you saw is was a Ground-and-Pound event?

Good: It looked like that position was a Ground-and-Pound type of position, but I couldn’t tell 100% that there were actually fists hitting faces.

O’Mara: But you did see [reading] “the guy in the top in the black hoodie pretty much just throwing down blows on the guy kind of MMA-style.”

Good: Meaning arm motions going down on the person on the bottom. Correct.

O’Mara: You’re’ not going to tell the jury here today that you saw fists hit flesh or face if you didn’t actually see it, right?

Good: I wouldn’t tell them that anyway, because i didn’t actually see it.

O’Mara: Great, thanks very much , no further questions.

BDLR: Not to elaborate but the thing that Mr. O’Mara said from the transcript, the bottom line, you needed to clarify after that to make sure that everybody understood that you did not hear or see fists the guy on the top hitting the guy on the bottom.

Good: Both sides made me clarify.

BDLR: Is that correct?

Good: That’s correct.

BDLR: You did not see blows on the guy on the bottom, correct?

Good: Correct.

BDLR: Thank you, no further questions.

Zimmerman Trial | Live video | Prosecution Witnesses

Bottom line? John Good did NOT see TM landing any blows on GZ. Now a punch is going to end up one of three ways. It's either going to MISS, LAND, or get BLOCKED. Now with TM straddling GZ's chest a MISS is simply nonsensical. He would have been a sitting duck if TM was throwing punches. The physical evidence clearly shows that GZ did not have 25-30 punches LAND on his face as he falsely claimed. That should be obvious to any reasonable person. So what was happening at that moment? *** Perhaps TM was throwing blows but GZ was BLOCKING his shots to protect his face? But you see the problem with that is that GZ had no defensive wounds on his hands or forearms of any sort. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada! So with all three possibilities being ruled out it seems logical that TM was not punching GZ at that time. So what else could John Good have been witnessing? Perhaps a struggle over the gun which was already out ... because again, it would have been physically impossible for GZ to retrieve it with TM straddling his chest and blocking his access to it with his legs. Just saying ...

OAW

*** On a side note ... I love how GZ supporters quote John Good as some sort of critical witness to the exclusion of others because he saw TM on top. When two other witnesses saw GZ on top. As if just because TM was on top AT ONE POINT means he was during the entirety of the fight. Anytime a fight goes to the ground and two guys are rolling around who's on top may change from moment to moment.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I don't know if I can say this any clearer. An affirmative defense is an excuse to a crime. The state must first prove a crime has been committed, and in this case they failed to do that. There are (at least) two components to a murder statute, the act and intent/negligence. The state had no evidence on the second, crucial piece to this puzzle, thus the defense did not have to prove anything to any standard, because the charges themselves did not have enough evidence to support a conviction.

Surely you jest?

Ok. First let me remind you of all the testimony that came about regarding the type of weapon GZ had and how it doesn't require a safety because even with a chambered round it will not fire "accidentally" due to the fact that it takes a complete trigger pull of X many pounds per square inch, blah, blah, blah. Remember? So GZ pulled out his gun, placed it against TM's hoodie in the center of his chest, and completely pulled the trigger. Thereby firing a single round through TM's heart. It will be most amusing to see you try to explain how GZ purposefully shot TM in the chest but magically had no "intent" to kill him. Do you think a gunshot wound to the heart was intended to just scare him? Graze him? Make him get up and run away?

Furthermore, you've indicated that "malice aforethought" and "premeditation" are two different things. And you are in error ... which explains this nonsensical argument you are trying to make.

Dictionary
premeditation - the action of planning something (esp. a crime) beforehand:

Thesaurus
premeditation noun
(advance) planning, forethought, preplanning, (criminal) intent; Law malice aforethought.

Go ahead. Right-click on the word "premeditation" here and select "Look up 'premeditation'". You'll see just how wrong you are on this and then perhaps we can move on. Don't worry ... I'll wait.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Ok are you done? Good. Now back to the bottom line. And this is the point that Uncle Skeleton and I have been trying to get across here. Imagine this scenario when the cops arrived at the scene ....

Cop: This kid is dead. What happened here?

GZ: I shot him.

Cop: Well why did you kill him?

GZ: Because it's a Sunday and I didn't have anything better to do.

Do you think GZ would have been immediately arrested and sent to jail for a crime? Yes or No?

And if you can bring yourself to acknowledge that the only reasonable, logical, and honest answer is "Yes" then you will see why homicide is a de facto crime UNLESS you provide an affirmative defense to excuse you from criminal liability.

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Well he was charged with Murder, so my apologies for narrowing my responses to that.

Except for every time you reiterated your claim that the Martin shooting would not have been a "crime" even without self-defense. Coincidence, or moving the goalposts?

sorry man, typing fast and not proofreading as well as I could. Forgive me?

I only forgive shooting people in the chest. But no typos!

Pre meditation and malice aforethought are two different things. Malice aforethought can happen in a given situation, whereas premeditation usually requires evidence that the murder was planned before the incident happened. i.e. I picked a fight with him and killed him as a result would be malice aforethought but not necessarily premeditation unless you can show that the plan all along was to murder. You can't argue self-defense (even though you didn't originally plan to murder) because your intentions to fight constitutes malice aforethought.

Thank you for answering a direct question this time.

If you think he was guilty of another crime (aside from manslaughter, as we was up on that too) I'd be happy to discuss with you.

You know what, make it manslaughter. That addresses my criticism of your posts (that no crime could be demonstrated, if we ignore self defense), and it avoids the ambiguity of malice aforethought because even the definition of manslaughter that YOU posted explicitly denies malice aforethought (which btw is not even mentioned in Florida's homicide statute).

Please explain why the evidence in this case can't demonstrate manslaughter, if we ignore self-defense.

My apologies. I'm not trying to be rude, Uncle. I apologize if I'm coming across that way. I respect you as a poster and as a critical thinker. Let me state that for the record.

Thank you.

I'm not going to argue semantics against the United States entire legal system. Maybe we should do away with the presumption of innocence then?

In any case where the defendant has already admitted to all the facts of a crime, and is claiming additional exceptional facts that excuse them for that crime? Sure, I'd agree under those specific circumstances.

Don't you think this is moving the goalposts a bit? I am concerned with why GZ had to be acquitted given the evidence. If you have another aim...

It's not moving the goalposts at all, because I said it clearly in my first post to you: what I really want is for the law to represent actual justice.

Since when are we evaluating the effectiveness of the court?

I said it clearly in my first post to you.

(besides hypotheticals that upend the foundation of our judicial system)

Don't do that. It's you who's proposing hypotheticals (namely: if there was no affirmative defense, then there would still not be evidence of any crime). I'm not complaining about hypotheticals, but don't be the guy that leads the conversation in one direction and then complains when people follow it in that exact same direction.

Come on man, this is dishonest. It is not outlandish to state that GZ must have been found not guilty since the prosecution could not prove their case

...even if it had not been self-defense! That's the claim you made, and that's the only reason I'm still having this conversation. If you want to back out of that claim, just say so.

allow me to guess but I think your beef is that murder is defined too narrowly for such situations, and that no charge exists to punish those who take another's life because they acted stupidly (but not negligently, or with malice, or without regard to the consequences of their actions.

My only beef is to figure out why anyone would think that there was no crime here if we ignore self-defense.

You're still dodging my question. I don't appreciate it. I'll ask for the (eigth, ninth?) time:

Please demonstrate where the state proved GZ to be acting with:

"...evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life"

Choosing to shoot someone is a depraved disregard for human life. I've said it 8?9? times already, and if you want any different answer, you'll have to actually address the answer already given. That's the way human communication works.

What's the context, Uncle? Am I in Afghanistan? Am I a cop responding to a felony? Is that someone point a gun at me?

Lawful capacity of official duty, and self defense, are defenses against homicide. But your claim was that it wasn't a crime even without an affirmative defense, so appealing to affirmative defenses is moving the goalposts.

The reason the law is written as such is to account for such situations, including self-defense.

Moving the goalposts. If you hadn't said it was no crime even without self-defense, then we wouldn't be having this debate.

You have a severe misunderstanding of how a criminal trial works in the United State. You don't plead innocent. You plead "not guilty" meaning you don't believe the state can prove it's charges against you.

Or it means they can prove all the charges, but you have an affirmative defense. Since this was obviously one of those, I am surprised I have to point it out to you. Again, smells strongly of trolling.

And don't pull that "oh you're so dumb I can't stand it" bullshit. I shouldn't have to tell you that's rude too.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Twisted what?

Either you know you were, or you're completely devoid of all objectivity and unable to have a rational conversation about the subject.

Bottom line? John Good did NOT see TM landing any blows on GZ. Now a punch is going to end up one of three ways. It's either going to MISS, LAND, or get BLOCKED. Now with TM straddling GZ's chest a MISS is simply nonsensical. He would have been a sitting duck if TM was throwing punches. The physical evidence clearly shows that GZ did not have 25-30 punches LAND on his face as he falsely claimed. That should be obvious to any reasonable person. So what was happening at that moment? *** Perhaps TM was throwing blows but GZ was BLOCKING his shots to protect his face? But you see the problem with that is that GZ had no defensive wounds on his hands or forearms of any sort. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada! So with all three possibilities being ruled out it seems logical that TM was not punching GZ at that time. So what else could John Good have been witnessing? Perhaps a struggle over the gun which was already out ... because again, it would have been physically impossible for GZ to retrieve it with TM straddling his chest and blocking his access to it with his legs. Just saying ...

It would seem you don't box, I have. I can block hits all day and not get bruises on my exposed forearms, because more often than not, there isn't enough room for the fist to reach the velocity needed to create them, since that part of the arm is so much closer to the assailant AND the blows wouldn't be fully stopped, just diverted, lessening the force even more. A person would need to show a strong tendency towards bruising, or the attacker would need to be Bruce Lee, for there to be that type of marking on the defender's arms and hands, especially when the defender is wearing a jacket or coat.

And no, it isn't impossible to pull a gun when being straddled by an attacker, I do that drill often, it's taught in defensive firearm training. Since Zimmerman was the Community Watch Captain, it's very possible he's taken similar classes.

*** On a side note ... I love how GZ supporters quote John Good as some sort of critical witness to the exclusion of others because he saw TM on top. When two other witnesses saw GZ on top. As if just because TM was on top AT ONE POINT means he was during the entirety of the fight. Anytime a fight goes to the ground and two guys are rolling around who's on top may change from moment to moment.

Again, more twisting (why do that?). They said they weren't sure, Good was the only one who said he is sure.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Please explain why the evidence in this case can't demonstrate manslaughter, if we ignore self-defense.

I see you're still struggling with the affirmative defense principle. I've seen some real whoppers in this exchange. If we ignore self-defense? That is the difference between someone who is morally corrupted or someone who was driven to an act.

The evidence; GZ was physically injured by TM and in a vulnerable position prior to drawing and firing his weapon, not a moment before. That shows restraint. Period. That's the crux of the defense. You don't ignore that because it's a core piece of evidence to the defense. If you're accusing someone of shoplifting and you're leaving out the little bit where they stopped to pay the cashier prior to leaving the shop with the goods, well then you're just accusing someone of shoplifting with blatant disregard for any evidence to the contrary. Is that your preferred judicial process; ignoring evidence?

The affirmative defense in this case was compelling enough that it was not even going to go to trial. They tried to stump GZ by bluffing about the whole thing being recorded on TM's phone at which point GZ expressed complete relief and thankfulness- no go. They went through 17 months of trial in a courtroom with a hungry prosecution attempting to prove GZ was of corrupted mind (depraved) and it didn't work. They had eye witness testimony of GZ on the bottom of the altercation, we have evidence of injuries to GZ, we have GZ screaming for help throughout the affair. They couldn't get 2nd degree murder and they couldn't get manslaughter. Why? Because given the evidence of self defense, those offenses didn't fit the act committed by GZ such that they could unanimously convict of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. It's really just that simple.

I see a lot of emotion running away with folks on this one. It's time to clear the egg off and move the f' on already. If you have a problem with due process or self defense laws or stand your ground laws, so be it. Argue that. Otherwise, the rest of this is just inane bs.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If we ignore self-defense?

That was snow-i's idea, not mine. I'm just baffled by how anyone can believe it. Judging by the rest of your post, you are as confused as I am how someone can think this case would come out the same way without self-defense.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That was snow-i's idea, not mine. I'm just baffled by how anyone can believe it. Judging by the rest of your post, you are as confused as I am how someone can think this case would come out the same way without self-defense.

I seem to recall you pressing snow-i on whether or not GZ's act would be criminal without self-defense. You're telling snow-i to ignore the evidence of self-defense and determine GZs guilt or innocence. Why ask that?

It was not snow-i's idea to remove self-defense from the scenario in a thought-exercise to manufacture GZ's guilt through kangaroo court, that was all you.

Do you have a problem with due process in general, self defense specifically, or the evidence of self defense presented in this case? Or is this an exhaustive approach at simply decrying gun ownership or the use of them for protection?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I seem to recall you pressing snow-i on whether or not GZ's act would be criminal without self-defense. You're telling snow-i to ignore the evidence of self-defense and determine GZs guilt or innocence. Why ask that?

I only asked him to defend claims he made out of the blue.

It was not snow-i's idea to remove self-defense from the scenario in a thought-exercise to manufacture GZ's guilt through kangaroo court, that was all you.

No, it was all him. He did it in this post. If you can point to a post of mine that included this idea and came before that one, I would be very surprised. The thought never occurred to me before he raised it.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I only asked him to defend claims he made out of the blue.


No, it was all him. He did it in this post. If you can point to a post of mine that included this idea and came before that one, I would be very surprised. The thought never occurred to me before he raised it.

Uncle, come on man.

That post was clearly meant to outline the legal reasoning behind GZ's acquittal from a procedural standpoint. You've failed to point out anywhere that I'm incorrect, only making vague statements about how preposterous it is that GZ wasn't found guilty. I made no claims out of the blue. I simply described a process that has been lauded as the pinnacle of human rights for 200+ years (The American Judicial system). A process that in this instance you seem to take issue with, but can provide nothing to demonstrate how the criminal trial process did not work exactly as intended or counter to the values and tradition of individual rights.

You're so fixated on the self-defense aspect of the court case - all I'm saying is it's a moot point because the prosecution couldn't prove their charges irregardless. I'm thinking ebuddy may be onto something that there's more here going on for you, because you really seem to be struggling with this simple concept that we've been taught since grade-school. In my experience on these boards, you're way better then that.

You've still failed to address how the state has met the requirement for "...evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life" and I think at this point you're just trying to save face. It is not you that's being trolled here, Uncle. I've only asked 9-10 times now and still haven't gotten a direct response.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Uncle, come on man.

That post was clearly meant to outline the legal reasoning behind GZ's acquittal from a procedural standpoint. You've failed to point out anywhere that I'm incorrect, only making vague statements about how preposterous it is that GZ wasn't found guilty.

Look I could say the same about you. You've failed to point out how Zimmerman's actions could have been completely legal if not for self-defense (which is what it means when you claim that self-defense was moot in this case), and you're only making vague statements about how preposterous it is that your self-described "grade-school" level of legal sophistication might have been anything less than 100% accurate, and how the conservative tea-party-esque idealized vision of the USA is the best most free-est fairest virtuous-est holiest testament to God's infallible creation that ever there was. I haven't done that because name-calling and character assassination are meaningless strawman fallacies. Don't fool yourself into thinking it's been effective when you do it.

A process that in this instance you seem to take issue with, but can provide nothing to demonstrate how the criminal trial process did not work exactly as intended or counter to the values and tradition of individual rights.

I take issue with your alternative reality in which self-defense did not influence the trial. Keeping you on the topic of your own hypothetical long enough to explain it has proven to be an impossible task.

You're so fixated on the self-defense aspect of the court case - all I'm saying is it's a moot point

See, ebuddy? This is what I'm talking about. @Snow-i: I am not fixated on the self-defense aspect. What I am fixated on is your unbelievable claim that the self-defense aspect was a moot point in this case. But every time I challenge you about your claim, you pretend you didn't make it. Then of course you make the same point anew and the whole cycle starts over.

This is a classic trolling move; say something indefensible, wait for people to do a double-take and call you on it, then pretend you didn't say it so you can play the martyr while they make fun of you for something you "didn't do" (but actually of course did do). I don't know if you're doing it on purpose, I weakly suspect you don't even know you're doing it. But I'm weary of it either way.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Look I could say the same about you. You've failed to point out how Zimmerman's actions could have been completely legal if not for self-defense

A bit of a strawman isn't it, Uncle? Why would I want to point out that if not for self defense GZ would have been found guilty?

and how the conservative tea-party-esque idealized vision of the USA is the best most free-est fairest virtuous-est holiest testament to God's infallible creation that ever there was. I haven't done that because name-calling and character assassination are meaningless strawman fallacies. Don't fool yourself into thinking it's been effective when you do it.

Ahh, I think we've touched a nerve here. What reforms to the judicial system would you like to see happen here Unc? Would you like to see the presumption of innocence reformed?

I take issue with your alternative reality in which self-defense did not influence the trial.

Can you please point out where I've ever said self-defense did not influence the trial? Pretty please?

I said that self-defense as an affirmative defense was a moot point because the prosecution couldn't prove their case regardless - a fact that you keep dismissing as fantasy or some outlandish notion.

Keeping you on the topic of your own hypothetical long enough to explain it has proven to be an impossible task.

I've done everything I can to avoid a hypothetical debate. Everything. I've asked you repeatedly to reconcile the difference in your position that GZ should have been guilty, and the state's failure to prove that he violated the murder/manslaughter statutes. You've not only failed to address that, but you've been repeatedly dodging a very simple and direct question: Where did the state prove that Zimmerman acted with depraved indifference to human life?

I'm not going to hold my breath on an answer from you, because I don't think you have one. Prove me wrong, I beg of you.

See, ebuddy? This is what I'm talking about. @Snow-i: I am not fixated on the self-defense aspect. What I am fixated on is your unbelievable claim that the self-defense aspect was a moot point in this case.

Can you please demonstrate where the state had enough for the charge, regardless of the defense? It's a moot point, because under our justice system (and I'll make this extremely clear for you):

If the state cannot prove their charges, there can be no conviction.

If you take issue with this statement, please cite your claim.

But every time I challenge you about your claim, you pretend you didn't make it.

I'll reiterate the foundation of my argument so it hopefully becomes clearer to you - the claim I'm making is that the state did not meet their burden for the charges levied against Mr. Zimmerman. Do you disagree with this?

This is a classic trolling move; say something indefensible,

Don't confuse your willful ignorance of the point I'm making with trolling you.

then pretend you didn't say it so you can play the martyr while they make fun of you for something you "didn't do" (but actually of course did do). I don't know if you're doing it on purpose, I weakly suspect you don't even know you're doing it. But I'm weary of it either way.

I'm the martyr here Uncle? I thought that was Treyvon Martin.

[OAW]

Snow-i,

I posed a very simple question to you that illustrates quite succinctly the point that Uncle Skeleton and I are making. Thus far you've chosen to duck it and keep tangling with Uncle not even realizing how you are undermining your own argument in the process. So I'll try this "one mo' gin" if I may indulge in the vernacular.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

Where did the state prove that Zimmerman acted with depraved indifference to human life?

Perhaps it may finally dawn upon you that this did not occur because of ... wait for it ..... a self-defense claim!!! Which brings us back to the question I posed to you. If GZ had NOT made a self-defense claim and simply said he shot TM because it was a Sunday and he didn't have anything better to do. Better yet ... if he said NOTHING. Not a word. Zip. Zilch. Nada. To the police and throughout the trial. Other than confessing to to the shooting by saying "I shot him in the chest." when asked "What happened here?" by the cops. In that scenario, with a confession and physical evidence tying him to the homicide ... and NO SELF DEFENSE CLAIM ... are you STILL going to sit here and make the preposterous claim that GZ would not have been convicted of murder?

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I said that self-defense as an affirmative defense was a moot point
...
I've done everything I can to avoid a hypothetical debate. Everything.

I couldn't have said it better. You raise a hypothetical, and then do everything you can to avoid discussing it. Everything. I'm bored of that game.

[ebuddy]

This is starting to look like a classic case of folks talking past one another.

TM was killed by GZ. There was an investigation. The FBI was commissioned to investigate whether or not there was a crime, particularly that indicating some racial animus, and they determined there had been no crime. GZ claimed "self-defense", walked them through the incident, answered the exhaustive questions of those trained to trip you up or to get you to implicate yourself, and they even tried to bluff him during the interview process -- his story held up. It was the best they could do. Yes, they could've pushed this to trial out of the gate with formal charges against him, spending thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money trying to make the case, or they can make the determination at the outset that they didn't have enough to convict. Which is what they did. This is where Snow-i's point comes into play. They didn't have enough to convict. It didn't need to go to trial for GZ to offer more evidence. Those whose careers are built on effectively making such decisions understand that the burden is on them, just as it is in the other 49 States, to establish depravity, but no one is arguing whether the affirmative defense is meritorious at that point -- it's the only suitable defense for taking someone's life. It's never *magic * poof * self-defense claim = innocent. They simply didn't have the evidence to charge him and they knew it then. There are those who insist someone lying dead is immediately enough to charge someone else with murder, that's not the case either. They investigated the incident and determined no crime had been committed. It wasn't until civil rights activists and others converged onto the scene to insist there had been racial animus that the only choice the State had at that point (to avoid implicating themselves) was to drag GZ through the judicial process; AFTER they had already determined no crime had been committed essentially becoming for the defense a star witness.

It worked in Florida as the notion of self-defense works across the entire country. The State feels they have enough evidence of a crime and they formally charge the perpetrator. While the perpetrator maintains innocence, the prosecution feels it has enough evidence to overcome their burden of proof. In this case, they determined they hadn't, but the issue was pressed until charges were lodged. The court of public opinion took this up and the issue went to trial.

And after 17 months of trial in which these jurors had become experts in all things related to the night of the incident, could not find him guilty of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter, both requiring either malice or depravity.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Snow-i,

I posed a very simple question to you that illustrates quite succinctly the point that Uncle Skeleton and I are making. Thus far you've chosen to duck it and keep tangling with Uncle not even realizing how you are undermining your own argument in the process. So I'll try this "one mo' gin" if I may indulge in the vernacular.

I'll be honest man, I didn't even read your post because I didn't think it was responding to me. My apologies.

Perhaps it may finally dawn upon you that this did not occur because of ... wait for it ..... a self-defense claim!!!

You're assuming GZ is guilty without that claim. This isn't how criminal trials work. I made it very big and very bold just one post up for you.

Which brings us back to the question I posed to you. If GZ had NOT made a self-defense claim and simply said he shot TM because it was a Sunday and he didn't have anything better to do. Better yet ... if he said NOTHING. Not a word. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

Already adressed this, man.

Originally Posted by Snow

Source:
"Presumption of innocence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

So follow me here.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Originally Posted by wiki
The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted.

This applies: Always.
This doesn't apply: Never.

To the police and throughout the trial. Other than confessing to to the shooting by saying "I shot him in the chest." when asked "What happened here?" by the cops. In that scenario, with a confession and physical evidence tying him to the homicide ... and NO SELF DEFENSE CLAIM ... are you STILL going to sit here and make the preposterous claim that GZ would not have been convicted of murder?

OAW

Did you even read my posts? Or just Uncle's responses to them. I don't think you read my posts, because I never laid that claim. I (for the fifthteenth time) said it was a moot point because, and wait for it:

If the state cannot prove their charges, there can be no conviction.

I get the feeling that you're purposefully ignoring this very basic tenet of the US judicial system to meet your emotional burden. If you ignore it enough, it'll disappear.

[Chongo]

I love this pic because it ilustrates the way the media chose to portray TM and GZ.



The prosocution had to play on the emotions of the jurors. It worked on my mother. "They should have found him guilty of something" My younger brother, her baby who can do no wrong, has a CCW.
God forbid he should ever be placed in a situation in which he is forced to defend himself or his wife. I know her opinion would be different. I, on the other hand, have been robbed at gunpoint and strong armed robbed. I subsequntly armed myself.

I was followed home one night from, yes my friendly neighborhood 7-11, one New Years eve after driving my girlfriend home. I stopped to buy something, but the clerk locked up to go party. as I was leaving I went to make a right turn out of the parking but had to wait for a car that was in front of me. The driver turned off his lights and started to back up. I backed up before they could hit my car and made a beeline for the other exit and headed home. I was shocked to discover they me followed right to my house. All I had to do was show my holster and they took off.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I was followed home one night from, yes my friendly neighborhood 7-11, one New Years eve after driving my girlfriend home. I stopped to buy something, but the clerk locked up to go party. as I was leaving I went to make a right turn out of the parking but had to wait for a car that was in front of me. The driver turned off his lights and started to back up. I backed up before they could hit my car and made a beeline for the other exit and headed home. I was shocked to discover they me followed right to my house. All I had to do was show my holster and they took off.

That was probably the neighborhood watch captain. Were you acting suspicious?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That was probably the neighborhood watch captain. Were you acting suspicious?

Hmm... this is fun. Maybe Chongo was picking up skittles and Arizona fruit juice to make purple drank and these thugs just wanted a little some-some.

Chongo clearly should've confronted these cracker-ass freaks in the parking lot - forget going home.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Chongo clearly should've confronted these cracker-ass freaks in the parking lot - forget going home.

...and if things went south he could have shot both of them and claimed self-defense.

[Chongo]

At that time (25 years ago) I would have had to shoot all FOUR of them, then dragged them into the house in order to claim self defense. It would have been messy though. I was loaded with semijacketed hollow points at that time. I've since switched to full jacketd as hollow point ammo is more likley to be used against you should you be forced to shoot someone. Anyone know what type of ammo was used by GZ?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

At that time (25 years ago) I would have had to shoot all FOUR of them, then dragged them into the house in order to claim self defense.

Based on what I've learned in this thread, all you would have to do is admit to shooting them in the street for reasons unknown, and self-defense would never even have to enter into it. They can't prove what's in your mind, man.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Anyone know what type of ammo was used by GZ?

Sellier & Bellot 115 grain JHP.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

...and if things went south he could have shot both of them and claimed self-defense.

The good news is it didn't go south because he went home. Had it gone another way, perhaps it would've aired on WET and the KKK would rally around him.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

They can't prove what's in your mind, man.

Thank goodness. Imagine a court system that would manufacture what's in your mind to lock you away for life.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'll be honest man, I didn't even read your post because I didn't think it was responding to me. My apologies.

Even though it quoted you by name? In any event, an apology is not warranted but it's accepted nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

You're assuming GZ is guilty without that claim. This isn't how criminal trials work. I made it very big and very bold just one post up for you.

Stay tuned. We'll deal with this below.

Originally Posted by Snow-i

Did you even read my posts? Or just Uncle's responses to them. I don't think you read my posts, because I never laid that claim. I (for the fifthteenth time) said it was a moot point because, and wait for it:

If the state cannot prove their charges, there can be no conviction.

I get the feeling that you're purposefully ignoring this very basic tenet of the US judicial system to meet your emotional burden. If you ignore it enough, it'll disappear.

Yes I read your post. And yes you most certainly did make that claim. This is what started this entire tangent ...

Only in cases where the state has the evidence to convict does the affirmative defense common law doctrine apply. Because the state could not produce that evidence, Zimmerman's defense really didn't have to do anything. A homicide in it of itself is not proof of a crime.

The problem here is that you seem reluctant to take your own words to their logical conclusion. Hence, my question to you ... which you still haven't addressed directly ... was designed to illuminate that in no uncertain terms. Your statement here is essentially making the argument that GZ didn't even have to bother making a self-defense claim ... because the state didn't have enough evidence to convict him of a crime even without it. Which again ... is a PREPOSTEROUS claim to make. If GZ shoots and kills TM. Confesses to it. Has physical evidence tying him to it. Makes no self-defense claim. Makes no accidental shooting claim. Makes no insanity claim. Says NOTHING to the police other than confessing to the shooting which leaves any reasonable person no other option than to conclude that he shot the kid because he freaking felt like it. To then claim that the state wouldn't be able to prove "a depraved indifference to human life" under such circumstances is downright laughable.

Again, it was his self-defense claim that precluded this. Absent an affirmative defense ... following a perfunctory trial it's go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. Because in the US people can't just go around killing each other willy nilly. Homicide is in fact illegal with certain exceptions. You seem to be confusing the "presumption of innocence" when it comes to the defendant with the illegality of the act itself.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Based on what I've learned in this thread, all you would have to do is admit to shooting them in the street for reasons unknown, and self-defense would never even have to enter into it. They can't prove what's in your mind, man.

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Thank goodness. Imagine a court system that would manufacture what's in your mind to lock you away for life.

Begging the question. If what's in your mind is not what locks you away for life, then it's irrelevant whether it's manufactured or not. Since mind-reading is impossible, it stands to reason that it is not necessary in order to do that which occurs frequently (conviction).

It's funny, It used to be that conservatives would talk a big game about personal responsibility and being accountable for one's actions, while it was the liberal pastime to equivocate about feelings and emotional truths, and whether being a good inner person was an excuse for doing actual actions that are evil. I'll try to remember this the next time conservatives pretend to know what's in someone's mind.... abortion? You can't prove the woman's mind isn't afraid for her life. Obama a socialist or controlling? No sorry you can't prove what's in his mind. Illegal immigration? For all we know they were just running from a scary street youth, not coming over for free health care. Terrorists? We can't prove it wasn't self-defense, even if they do absolutely nothing to prove that it is. Sure it's obvious by their actions, but aparently that would be manufacturing something since you can't prove what's in their minds.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The good news is it didn't go south because he went home.

Actually, what Chongo said was that it didn't go south because he brandished his firearm. He didn't decide to go home in that narrative, he was already home when he realized he was being stalked, and he didn't go anywhere after that realization, instead he confronted the stalkers using a display of force.

[OAW]

^^^^

Exactly. Because if he was aware that he was being followed up front then leading them to his home would have been a spectacularly stupid thing to do. I think most reasonable people would agree. Strange how that same logic doesn't seem to apply to TM.

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Strange how that same logic doesn't seem to apply to TM.

Actually I don't think it's strange at all to apply logic differentially to the defendant than to the victim. We would apply the same protections to both of them if we could, but we only have that option for the guy who survived, so that's all we're going to do. Guilt isn't a zero-sum game, in general. They might both be guilty (even of the same crime), one or the other might be guilty, or they might both be innocent (an innocent mistake leads to one or both parties being forced to choose between themself and the other). Because of this, knowing the victim's guilt or innocence tells us nothing about the defendant's guilt or innocence, so why bother? The latter is the only thing we still care about. This is probably why blaming the victim (eg in a rape) is a fallacy. The victim's guilt doesn't add any information about the defendant's guilt.