[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I realize I'm hitting this late, but it'd nice to see a second analysis done by economic level. Just incase part of it can be explained by having really good lawyers (or crappy public defenders).

Unless I'm misunderstanding the graph*, that should already be controlled for when you compare white-on-black (the last grouping) to white-on-white (the baseline). I see what you're saying about the defendant's race being confounded by wealth, but I don't see how the victim's race would, because the victim in a murder trial doesn't need to pay for a lawyer.

--------------------
*But maybe I am misunderstanding it, because how can "All" be lower than "SYG" and "non"SYG" (in the last grouping)? Isn't "all" simply a combination of those two, and therefore should lie somewhere between them?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Which he said at the first questioning. You're upset that he didn't say that on the phone, but a lot was going on and he likely didn't state everything that was happening. He'd never been trained to relay information and that's difficult to do under pressure, and it isn't easy to recall everything perfectly and in the right sequence, especially when you find it difficult to speak to strangers. I know because I've been there and seen it happen firsthand.

He's the freaking Neighborhood Watch Captain! You are more inclined to believe that such an individual just happened to not mention highly pertinent information like that than acknowledge that it's more likely that it simply never happened. He wasn't in a high pressure situation ... he was driving in his car. And he seemed pretty relaxed on the phone to me. Especially at the beginning of the call. He certainly had training and materials on what to relay to the police. Again, he was the freaking Neighborhood Watch Captain. Did you not see this lady ....



... on the stand? Wendy Dorival, Sanford Police trainer of George Zimmerman on neighborhood watch? You do realize that “Citizens should never take action on their observations,” is part of the neighborhood watch manual that GZ received? Did you hear Ms. Dorival on the stand say that she tells Neighborhood Watch not to follow people? “We say ‘don’t do that. That’s the job of law enforcement." Furthermore, he apparently he had no issues "speaking to strangers" given the DOZENS of 911 calls he made over the years. 100% on black males. One of whom was 7-9 years old. In a 70% white neighborhood I guess he never came across any unfamiliar white dudes. Even though it's a rental community with people moving in and out all the time.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I think you want/need for him to be a liar, especially a very good one (so good that he duped the PD detectives), but it doesn't fit. Either he's good enough to fool seasoned professionals and gets the facts right, or he doesn't and makes a jumbled mess of things, the alternative is highly unlikely.

Duped the Sanford PD detectives how? Det. Serino was the one who said he should be charged with manslaughter. It was the local prosecutor who overruled that.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Again, I believe there are some things that you feel you need to believe.

I'll let that the discrepancies between the 911 tape and his written statement speak for itself. Especially with respect to TM supposedly "circling the car". We'll just note that you didn't address that at all. And a DISMISSAL is not a REBUTTAL.

I've said it before and I'll say it again ... when racial issues arise denial runs deeper than the mind of Minolta.

OAW

[mduell]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Breakdown of the killings: The figures represent the percentage likelihood that the deaths will be found justifiable compared to white-on-white killings.

There's some things wrong with that graph.

1) "All cases" should always fall between "SYG cases" and "Non-SYG cases".

2) How can the percentage likelyhood be >100%? If it always happened, that's 100%.

3) How can the percentage likelyhood be negative?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

He's the freaking Neighborhood Watch Captain! You are more inclined to believe that such an individual just happened to not mention highly pertinent information like that than acknowledge that it's more likely that it simply never happened. He wasn't in a high pressure situation ... he was driving in his car. And he seemed pretty relaxed on the phone to me. Especially at the beginning of the call. He certainly had training and materials on what to relay to the police. Again, he was the freaking Neighborhood Watch Captain. Did you not see this lady ....

So, is he a stupid cop-wannabe or the savvy Neighborhood Watch Captain? He isn't both. I think he was just a guy trying to do his best under a tremendous amount of stress (and who should have just stayed in his car). His mistake was getting out of the vehicle, but he wasn't the one who started the altercation.

... on the stand? Wendy Dorival, Sanford Police trainer of George Zimmerman on neighborhood watch? You do realize that “Citizens should never take action on their observations,” is part of the neighborhood watch manual that GZ received? Did you hear Ms. Dorival on the stand say that she tells Neighborhood Watch not to follow people? “We say ‘don’t do that. That’s the job of law enforcement." Furthermore, he apparently he had no issues "speaking to strangers" given the DOZENS of 911 calls he made over the years. 100% on black males. One of whom was 7-9 years old. In a 70% white neighborhood I guess he never came across any unfamiliar white dudes. Even though it's a rental community with people moving in and out all the time.

Or, on the other side of the coin, the blacks in the area were involved in the lion's share of the thefts. You're speculating and I am too, we don't know what was on his mind all this time, but aid for the Defense, Ms, Channa Lloyd, is convinced he isn't a racist and she knows him much better than either of us.

Duped the Sanford PD detectives how? Det. Serino was the one who said he should be charged with manslaughter. It was the local prosecutor who overruled that.

Either he's the master manipulator or he's a chump, as I said before, he can't be the mustache-twisting mastermind and a bumbling fool at the same time. You can't have it both ways.

I'll let that the discrepancies between the 911 tape and his written statement speak for itself. Especially with respect to TM supposedly "circling the car". We'll just note that you didn't address that at all. And a DISMISSAL is not a REBUTTAL.

I've said it before and I'll say it again ... when racial issues arise denial runs deeper than the mind of Minolta.

Indeed, you won't touch the prosecution's discrepancies with a 10' cattle prod, and you've been running fringe scenarios ever since this started.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by mduell 

There's some things wrong with that graph.

1) "All cases" should always fall between "SYG cases" and "Non-SYG cases".

This is odd. Could be a mistake on the graph.

Originally Posted by mduell 

2) How can the percentage likelyhood be >100%? If it always happened, that's 100%.

3) How can the percentage likelyhood be negative?

The percentages are in relation to white on white homicides ruled justifiable. So the other scenarios show the relative likelihood of those scenarios being ruled justifiable ... positive or negative ... as compared to the white on white baseline. The key takeaway is that if you are white and you kill somebody in a SYG state ... if you are going for justifiable homicide you really want the dead person to be black.

OAW

[OAW]

The only minority on the all-female jury that voted to acquit George Zimmerman said today that Zimmerman "got away with murder" for killing Trayvon Martin and feels she owes an apology Martin's parents.

"You can't put the man in jail even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty," said the woman who was identified only as Juror B29 during the trial. "But we had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence."

She said the jury was following Florida law and the evidence, she said, did not prove murder.

"George Zimmerman got away with murder, but you can't get away from God. And at the end of the day, he's going to have a lot of questions and answers he has to deal with," Maddy said. "[But] the law couldn't prove it."

When the jury of six women—five of them mothers—began deliberations, Maddy said she favored convicting Zimmerman of second degree murder, which could have put him in prison for the rest of his life. The jury was also allowed to consider manslaughter, a lesser charge.

"I was the juror that was going to give them the hung jury. I fought to the end," she said.

However, on the second day of deliberations, after spending nine hours discussing the evidence, Maddy said she realized there wasn't enough proof to convict Zimmerman of murder or manslaughter under Florida law.

Zimmerman concedes he shot and killed Martin in Sanford on Feb. 26, 2012, but maintains he fired in self-defense.

"That's where I felt confused, where if a person kills someone, then you get charged for it," Maddy said. "But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty."

George Zimmerman Juror Says He 'Got Away With Murder' - ABC News

That certainly doesn't sound like the entire jury bought GZ's story to me. That's the second juror that spoke of "confusing" jury instructions.

OAW

[subego]

It sounds like she bought the part relevant to the law.

I'll say it again. Murder without a witness is de facto legal in Florida.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

It sounds like she bought the part relevant to the law.

I'll say it again. Murder without a witness is de facto legal in Florida.

Indeed. And therein lies the fundamental issue. It just seems to me that in a situation like this where one confesses to a homicide that the burden of proof should be on the defense to prove it was justifiable beyond a reasonable doubt ... as opposed to the burden of proof being on the prosecution to prove it was not beyond a reasonable doubt. Especially when the victim is unarmed.

OAW

[subego]

On one hand I agree with you, on the other, if you give prosecutors the chance to bag innocent people, they will. I'm highly skeptical of the concept of the burden of proof being on someone other than the government.

[Shaddim]

Yes, if you attack someone in the state of Florida, and they have a gun, they can kill you and it's legal. Two options there; don't assault people, they may have a gun, or change the law in Florida to disallow the use of deadly force in self-defense. They did believe GZ's telling of events, at least to some degree, or he wouldn't have walked. As the one juror said, instead of getting angry with Zimmerman, why didn't Martin just talk with him? Why try and go all billy-badass on him, in the middle of the night, in the rain? He knew who it was, it was "that creepy-ass cracker". Was he trying to act tough and defend his right to "WWB"? Being a manchild of 17, with poor parental role models, that's a probability.

Also at work here is a certain amount of "juror remorse", this is a very real phenomenon that affects literally 1000s of former jurors when they return to the "real world", and due to the way entertainment "news" has taken over factual reporting, finding the unvarnished facts has become nearly impossible. She wasn't subjected to the barrage of media opinions while she was on the jury, and now she's been hit with it all at once and it's probably overwhelming.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Indeed. And therein lies the fundamental issue. It just seems to me that in a situation like this where one confesses to a homicide that the burden of proof should be on the defense to prove it was justifiable beyond a reasonable doubt ... as opposed to the burden of proof being on the prosecution to prove it was not beyond a reasonable doubt. Especially when the victim is unarmed.

OAW

Then you change the fundamental nature of our judicial system, that a person is innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof should always be on the State.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Yes, if you attack someone in the state of Florida, and they have a gun, they can kill you and it's legal.

You buy GZ's story hook, line, and sinker. That much you've made abundantly clear. And I have no interest in arguing that particular point with you any further. But let me ask you this. Say for the sake of discussion that GZ followed TM, came up to him on a dark night, and tried to forcibly detain him. You know ... so he wouldn't "get away". Do you think TM would have had the right to fight him under those circumstances?

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Then you change the fundamental nature of our judicial system, that a person is innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof should always be on the State.

I disagree. One isn't innocent of a homicide if you confess. The question isn't proving he did it. He's already said as much. The only question is if there are extenuating circumstances which would warrant one not being punished. IOW, the fact that one has committed a homicide is what it is. The issue is whether or not it was justified.

If GZ had said he didn't do it then indeed the state should have the burden to prove that he did. GZ shouldn't have to prove that he did not. That is, he shouldn't have the burden of proving a negative. By the same logic, in this situation GZ confessed that he did it but claimed it was justifiable. So he should have the burden of proving that it was. And the state shouldn't have the burden of proving that it was not. That is, the state shouldn't have the burden of proving a negative.

OAW

[turtle777]

OAW, you don't know what you're asking for.

Don't you think introducing "guilty until proven innocent" as a viable concept would be an extremely slippery slope ?

You most hope that all that racism that you claim to exist in the US would go away overnight, because surely, if you believe that there is as much racism as you claim, "guilty until proven innocent" could become a disaster for African Americans.

Alas, I think "guilty until proven innocent" will be dangerous purely based on government overreach tendencies.

-t

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I disagree. One isn't innocent of a homicide if you confess. The question isn't proving he did it. He's already said as much. The only question is if there are extenuating circumstances which would warrant one not being punished. IOW, the fact that one has committed a homicide is what it is. The issue is whether or not it was justified.

If GZ had said he didn't do it then indeed the state should have the burden to prove that he did. GZ shouldn't have to prove that he did not. That is, he shouldn't have the burden of proving a negative. By the same logic, in this situation GZ confessed that he did it but claimed it was justifiable. So he should have the burden of proving that it was. And the state shouldn't have the burden of proving that it was not. That is, the state shouldn't have the burden of proving a negative.

OAW

So it should be the defense that has to prove a negative? The defense will have to prove that their client didn't commit a crime beyond a reasonable doubt?

Lets apply that to justifiable public speech (under the 1st) and justifiable remaining silent (5th), and see how that stacks up. Might as well take away their lawyers too at this point. We'll get more of them that way.

You surely can't think that won't backfire immediately for everybody, right?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

You buy GZ's story hook, line, and sinker. That much you've made abundantly clear. And I have no interest in arguing that particular point with you any further. But let me ask you this. Say for the sake of discussion that GZ followed TM, came up to him on a dark night, and tried to forcibly detain him. You know ... so he wouldn't "get away". Do you think TM would have had the right to fight him under those circumstances?

OAW

Zimmerman didn't do that, there's no proof of it. I believe he got out of the car, approached Martin, and Martin slugged him, then it escalated from there. That's what I believe. "Forcibly detain"? You mean tackle, grab, corner him, use harsh language, what?

Originally Posted by OAW 

I disagree. One isn't innocent of a homicide if you confess. The question isn't proving he did it. He's already said as much. The only question is if there are extenuating circumstances which would warrant one not being punished. IOW, the fact that one has committed a homicide is what it is. The issue is whether or not it was justified.

If GZ had said he didn't do it then indeed the state should have the burden to prove that he did. GZ shouldn't have to prove that he did not. That is, he shouldn't have the burden of proving a negative. By the same logic, in this situation GZ confessed that he did it but claimed it was justifiable. So he should have the burden of proving that it was. And the state shouldn't have the burden of proving that it was not. That is, the state shouldn't have the burden of proving a negative.

OAW

Killing isn't murder, it isn't even manslaughter, otherwise all soldiers who've killed enemy combatants would be in deep shit. Killing is an action, the others are social conventions and definitions for a type of killing. It's the State's job to prove if he did it with malice of intent or through negligence, and they could prove neither, because they couldn't show there ever was. George was stupid for getting out of the car and placing himself in danger, but fortunately for most people, being an idiot, in and of itself, isn't a crime.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

So it should be the defense that has to prove a negative? The defense will have to prove that their client didn't commit a crime beyond a reasonable doubt?

Lets apply that to justifiable public speech (under the 1st) and justifiable remaining silent (5th), and see how that stacks up. Might as well take away their lawyers too at this point. We'll get more of them that way.

You surely can't think that won't backfire immediately for everybody, right?

We need street judges with hand cannons. Everyone would Dredd the law!

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Zimmerman didn't do that, there's no proof of it. I believe he got out of the car, approached Martin, and Martin slugged him, then it escalated from there. That's what I believe. "Forcibly detain"? You mean tackle, grab, corner him, use harsh language, what?

You seem so sure as to what GZ did or did not do. When the fact of the matter is that we don't know exactly what prompted the physical confrontation. There's "no proof" in the form of eyewitnesses or video of that one way or the other. We have GZ's word and his word alone ... because TM isn't around to tell his side of the story. There are absolutely no witnesses of any sort to corroborate GZ's story. And you chose to disregard the one witness who actually heard the confrontation begin. Now you believe GZ nonetheless ... despite her testimony. Whereas I think the man's credibility is sh*t given the fact that he's been demonstrated to be a liar on numerous material aspects to his story. Even his statements that weren't outright lies but more aptly called "inconsistencies" are consistently strategic. They always change the story to portray TM as more "suspicious", "threatening", and "aggressive" than his previous statements would indicate and himself as the victim. Case in point, you yourself just said you believed GZ approached TM. Which GZ said at first on the reenactment video then caught himself and switched it to TM approached him. His written statement claimed TM approached him as he was heading back to his truck. Remember?

But in any event, by "forcibly detain" I mean what if GZ ... a guy Det. Serino described as having a "little hero complex" ... approached TM, grabbed him, and tried to forcibly manhandle him to where the police were going to enter the subdivision. Again, so the "f*cking punk" wouldn't "get away". Something that would prompt TM to yell "Get off! Get off!" for Rachel Jeantel to hear on the phone. Now I'm not sure if you genuinely didn't know what I meant or if you were just ducking my question. But you have your clarification now. And I'm not asking you to "believe" that's what happened. I'm just asking you to "imagine" that it went down like that for the sake of discussion. So my question remains. Do you think TM would have had the right to fight GZ ... a strange unidentified man stalking him through the subdivision on a dark night ... under those circumstances?

OAW

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

We need street judges with hand cannons. Everyone would Dredd the law!

Get it signed fellas:

Dredd sequel campaign

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

You seem so sure as to what GZ did or did not do. When the fact of the matter is that we don't know exactly what prompted the physical confrontation.

Then there is your reasonable doubt.

There's "no proof" in the form of eyewitnesses or video of that one way or the other. We have GZ's word and his word alone ... because TM isn't around to tell his side of the story. There are absolutely no witnesses of any sort to corroborate GZ's story. And you chose to disregard the one witness who actually heard the confrontation begin. Now you believe GZ nonetheless ... despite her testimony.

You want so badly for him to be guilty. I don't get it man, any objective evaluation of the witness testimony and physical evidence shows a strong reason to doubt his guilt.

Whereas I think the man's credibility is sh*t given the fact that he's been demonstrated to be a liar on numerous material aspects to his story. Even his statements that weren't outright lies but more aptly called "inconsistencies" are consistently strategic. They always change the story to portray TM as more "suspicious", "threatening", and "aggressive" than his previous statements would indicate and himself as the victim. Case in point, you yourself just said you believed GZ approached TM. Which GZ said at first on the reenactment video then caught himself and switched it to TM approached him. His written statement claimed TM approached him as he was heading back to his truck. Remember?

This is all your speculation and anecdotal analysis.

But in any event, by "forcibly detain" I mean what if GZ ... a guy Det. Serino described as having a "little hero complex" ... approached TM, grabbed him, and tried to forcibly manhandle him to where the police were going to enter the subdivision. Again, so the "f*cking punk" wouldn't "get away". Something that would prompt TM to yell "Get off! Get off!" for Rachel Jeantel to hear on the phone. Now I'm not sure if you genuinely didn't know what I meant or if you were just ducking my question. But you have your clarification now. And I'm not asking you to "believe" that's what happened. I'm just asking you to "imagine" that it went down like that for the sake of discussion. So my question remains. Do you think TM would have had the right to fight GZ ... a strange unidentified man stalking him through the subdivision on a dark night ... under those circumstances?

OAW

Emphasis mine.

You should be thankful we don't put people in jail based on what ifs. Else civil rights for everyone would be but a distant memory.

You want us to imagine a made up scenario that has no basis in reality, other the your supposition, and feel outrage at a real person based on that?

Man, you really want GZ to be guilty.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

You seem so sure as to what GZ did or did not do.

As you do with Martin.

You're confused, Zimmerman was the one yelling "Get off!".

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Emphasis mine.

You should be thankful we don't put people in jail based on what ifs.

He's saying guilty people can get away with murder too. "What if" refers to the next guy who wants to kill someone, admit to it, and still walk scott free. Or the floodgates worth of people who will do that. I don't know why every single murder defendant in Florida hasn't always simply claimed "self defense" and won their freedom. The publicity of this case, if nothing else, could create an epidemic of people getting away with murder, now that everyone knows the law doesn't punish murderers as long as they know the magic incantation of claiming it was self defense. In 49 other states, self defense isn't a magic incantation; the killer has to actually provide evidence of their defense. Not here, and that's where "what if" comes in. "What if every actually murderer starts claiming self defense?" In other words, "what makes Zimmerman's defense different from every murderer who definitely is guilty?" In everywhere besides FL, they would hit a roadblock when it's time to present evidence in support of that claim. In Florida, all they have to present is "because I say so," and the law becomes meaningless.

Else civil rights for everyone would be but a distant memory.

In 49 other states this hasn't happened, instead the opposite has happened. Allowing the laws against murder to withstand baseless claims of self-defense gives us all the civil right to not be gunned down in the street every time there is a lack of witnesses. The only civil rights threatened by this property of all-the-states-that-aren't-Florida is the right to not have to show evidence after you admit to killing someone. Justified homicide is not a very common occurrence; it's not unreasonable to have to show more than 0 evidence when it happens.

Man, you really want GZ to be guilty.

I'll let OAW speak for himself, but what I really want is for the law to represent actual justice. A self-defense burden of a preponderance of the evidence is justice. A self-defense burden of saying a magic incantation of "self defense" is not justice.

[Shaddim]

Wow, I really can't believe I'm hearing pleas for repeal of such a basic rule of common law, with roots going back to the 2nd century, presumption of innocence "ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat". That's so absurd I'm actually shocked, and very few things shock me anymore. Well done.

[pooka]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'll let OAW speak for himself, but what I really want is for the law to represent actual justice. A self-defense burden of a preponderance of the evidence is justice. A self-defense burden of saying a magic incantation of "self defense" is not justice.

You seem quite capable of being a logic-bot at times. Your position does not compute and I'm unaware of the particular fantasy land where you are claiming such a scenario has taken place.

Unrelated: You're walking down the street wearing low top Vans. I hate low top Vans. I follow you for 16 blocks calling you a prissy-faced hipster bitch until you snap and start beating me with a trashcan. I respond by stabbing you in the jugular with a pocket knife and step back in shock as you bleed out. You die. What is "actual justice" in this scenario? Do we need variables? Were gay slurs used at any time? Is race a factor? Was your skirt too short? Do any of these variables influence the prosecution's decision to go for Murder-1?

[Shaddim]

Obviously, this is a common trend, from a Florida opinions board:

If he killed someone he is guilty. Do you not understand that? Guilty today. Guilty yesterday. Guilty tomorrow. If he killed someone he is guilty.
...
Based on your logic if a thousand people saw someone commit a crime, and that person even admitted committing the crime, the entire world should consider that person innocent until its declared formally in a court of law?

No.

If someone commits a crime, they are guilty.

Yikes.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You want us to imagine a made up scenario that has no basis in reality, other the your supposition, and feel outrage at a real person based on that?

It has just as much basis in reality as GZ's story about how the physical confrontation was initiated ... which again, is corroborated by no one. That being said, I already said my purpose here is not to argue the point about what did or did not happen. The question was posed to Shaddim ... but since you chimed in feel free to answer as well. Because it's a simple question. Which makes all this ducking and dodging that's going on even more telling.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

As you do with Martin.

You're confused, Zimmerman was the one yelling "Get off!".

According to who? Certainly not Rachel Jeantel. And no one else heard that. So you are basing this on what? And in the meantime I'd appreciate a simple answer to my simple question. Unless of course you fully intend to continue with this ....



OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Wow, I really can't believe I'm hearing pleas for repeal of such a basic rule of common law, with roots going back to the 2nd century, presumption of innocence "ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat".

Translation: The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies.
The prosecution asserts who killed whom, so that's why the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
After who killed whom is established, the defense can assert that it was self defense. This is called an "affirmative defense." The common law principle you quoted is precisely why in this circumstance it is the defense who generally must present proof. The defense is the side that's asserting something, so it only makes sense that the side making the assertion is the one that should prove it. Note: the burden is lower for an affirmative defense than for a prosecution; merely a preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. So the scales are still biased in favor of not-guilty.

That the burden of proof is on he who affirms, is logically equivalent to what OAW said already: that it doesn't make sense for either party to have to prove a negative. Each side only has to prove what they are asserting. So, OAW probably owes you a thank-you for supporting his post with such latin-y validation.

That's so absurd I'm actually shocked, and very few things shock me anymore. Well done.

I don't for a second believe this charade that you can't tell the difference between not doing something and being allowed to do something under specific exceptional circumstances.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

He's saying guilty people can get away with murder too. "What if" refers to the next guy who wants to kill someone, admit to it, and still walk scott free. Or the floodgates worth of people who will do that. I don't know why every single murder defendant in Florida hasn't always simply claimed "self defense" and won their freedom. The publicity of this case, if nothing else, could create an epidemic of people getting away with murder, now that everyone knows the law doesn't punish murderers as long as they know the magic incantation of claiming it was self defense. In 49 other states, self defense isn't a magic incantation; the killer has to actually provide evidence of their defense. Not here, and that's where "what if" comes in. "What if every actually murderer starts claiming self defense?" In other words, "what makes Zimmerman's defense different from every murderer who definitely is guilty?" In everywhere besides FL, they would hit a roadblock when it's time to present evidence in support of that claim. In Florida, all they have to present is "because I say so," and the law becomes meaningless.

To say there was no evidence of self defense is a dishonest representation of the evidence. Zimmerman's wounds along with the neighbors testimony that he was screaming for his life satifies a preponderence of the evidence that Zimmerman acted in self defense. In order to convict him, the state would have to show beyond a reasonable doubt (a higher standard) that Zimmerman was not infact acting so.

In 49 other states, there are plenty of cases of people going to jail for trying to defend themselves (up to and including justifiable homicide). Try being black and defending yourself against an overzealous cop in Maryland, and see where that gets you. I personally spent the night in jail because of one of these cops, and was contacted by the ACLU shortly thereafter because I had the wherewithal to toss my phone to a friend while getting arrested. The other person that was arrested with me had her video of the incident erased before it was returned to her. This is known as destroying evidence and patently illegal, but unfortunately the courts have granted the cops pretty much a higher credibility by default in a courtroom, meaning whatever they say goes. A simple letter on a lawyers letterhead citing the video was enough for the DA to drop the charges and agree to expunge the charge so long as I did not sue.

I honestly believe I saved myself a beating and probably whatever charge they wanted to slap on me (such as resisting). The same cop who arrested me is currently on administrative duty following a incident where an unconscious drunkard got the shit beaten out of him - someone caught it on camera without the cops being aware.

In 49 other states this hasn't happened, instead the opposite has happened. Allowing the laws against murder to withstand baseless claims of self-defense gives us all the civil right to not be gunned down in the street every time there is a lack of witnesses. The only civil rights threatened by this property of all-the-states-that-aren't-Florida is the right to not have to show evidence after you admit to killing someone. Justified homicide is not a very common occurrence; it's not unreasonable to have to show more than 0 evidence when it happens.

The burden to prove guilt must always be on the state. To legislate otherwise is to take away a person's very right to life in the case of self-defense. What more could Zimmerman have done in the situation to ensure there'd be enough evidence to clear his name? "Hold on Trayvon, let me document this before you beat my ass so that my self-defense will stand in court"

I'll let OAW speak for himself, but what I really want is for the law to represent actual justice. A self-defense burden of a preponderance of the evidence is justice. A self-defense burden of saying a magic incantation of "self defense" is not justice.

That's not what happened here and it's disingenuous to claim he showed no evidence. He showed all the evidence he had available to him and he cannot be faulted for there being a lack of more evidence. A lack of evidence is never grounds to convict someone of a crime - and justifiable homicide is not a crime. There is no evidence of him destroying evidence or withholding testimony. Only what-ifs and racial outrage, and a prosecutorial office that did withhold evidence from the defense and fired the whistle blower who went by the oath he swore. Where's the justice for him?
It is better for 100 guilty to go free then 1 innocent to go to jail.


At this point this case is nothing more then a means to an end for the leftist political machine, they don't care that they're setting race relations back 20 years by getting the public in an outrage. The president of the United States had a real chance here to unite us for a common purpose, but instead chose to pander to a specific group and without explicitly saying so, disagreewith the way our justice system works to stick it to whitey, when the principal boogeyman in this case isn't even white.

"That coulda been me!" Give me a ****ing break, man.


Meanwhile the war rages in our inner cities and thousands die weekly through actual institutional racism, but with the nation's attention turned towards a battle to remove civil rights to lynch a perceived boogeyman, NO ONE GIVES A SHIT, and it thoroughly disgusts me. Not to mention this is the perfect distraction from all the coverups Obama is currently engaged in. Perfect way to distract the nation from the erosion of our 4th amendment rights. Perfect way to forget about using taxpayer money to target political groups. Perfect way to distract from the fact that a US ambassador was killed and the State department still won't allow investigators to talk to the few surviving witnesses. Perfect way to distract from HIllary's "What's the difference if we completely misled the public or not." That nobody sees the bigger picture in this case makes me doubt the very future of our society, and our ability to preserve the precious civil rights that are being attacked on multiple fronts by big government. /rant

At least all the wiener articles make me laugh.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

So it should be the defense that has to prove a negative? The defense will have to prove that their client didn't commit a crime beyond a reasonable doubt?

Clearly you didn't ready my post. I specifically said that in the case of a self-defense claim there's a stipulation as to the fact that Person A is dead and Person B is responsible for that death. The question then becomes was it justified or not? As Uncle Skeleton indicated .... "A self-defense burden of a preponderance of the evidence is justice. A self-defense burden of saying a magic incantation of "self defense" is not justice." There is no proving a negative here. There is proving a positive that the killing was, in fact, in self-defense.

Originally Posted by Shaddim

Killing isn't murder, it isn't even manslaughter, otherwise all soldiers who've killed enemy combatants would be in deep shit.

It's funny how you say that like I'm lacking in vocabulary or something. I used the word homicide for a reason. Which from a legal standpoint simply means a "killing". Whether that killing was criminal or not is a matter for the courts. A self-defense claim is not analogous to a theater of war in the slightest. So I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. What I'm saying if that if the prosecution and the defense both stipulate to the fact that the defendant killed someone ... then the prosecution doesn't have a burden to prove that fact as is the norm. It just seems to me that if the defendant has killed someone ... especially if the victim is unarmed ... then he has some explaining to do. If he does NOT claim self-defense or an accidental killing then the fact that he confessed to the homicide means go straight to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. Right? Again, a self-defense claim by its very nature is an affirmative defense. Which generally places the burden of proof on the defense when it comes to the justification for the homicide. The issue with Florida is that with Stand Your Ground in place, although GZ had to introduce some evidence that he acted in self-defense, he didn't have to convince the jury that he acted in self-defense. All he has to do is to create "reasonable doubt" as to whether he acted in self-defense. And my point here is that he should have to "convince the jury" ... by a preponderance of the evidence standard at least.

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by pooka 

You seem quite capable of being a logic-bot at times. Your position does not compute and I'm unaware of the particular fantasy land where you are claiming such a scenario has taken place.

Shaddim, Snow-i, turtle, BadKosh and others have been intentionally conflating the standard of proof for affirmative and negating defenses. The standard for a regular plain jane negating defense (such as "it wasn't me") is absolutely nothing. No proof. The defendant could be in a coma with no spokesperson or counsel, and if nothing else is done, if no evidence proves it wrong, the defendant has won. If you apply that standard to self-defense, then even though it is beyond any doubt that the defendant killed someone, even if they confessed, then all they have to do is plea "self defense," and suddenly the evidence against them is meaningless. Poof. Magic.

The only sane way to go about this, is the way that 49 of the 50 states do it, which they derived from the common law principle that Shaddim posted, which is that the burden of proof is on he who affirms, not him who denies. Under this principle, affirming "self defense" is not a magic shield, it requires he who affirms it to then present evidence supporting that affirmation.

Unrelated: You're walking down the street wearing low top Vans. I hate low top Vans. I follow you for 16 blocks calling you a prissy-faced hipster bitch until you snap and start beating me with a trashcan. I respond by stabbing you in the jugular with a pocket knife and step back in shock as you bleed out. You die. What is "actual justice" in this scenario? Do we need variables? Were gay slurs used at any time? Is race a factor? Was your skirt too short? Do any of these variables influence the prosecution's decision to go for Murder-1?

If your self-defense was justified, then we as logical, rational, empirical beings can expect there to be some evidence of this fact. I believe that if Zimmerman had been required to present evidence of his affirmation, as he would have under common law dating back centuries, then he would have been able to do so if his story was the truth. If A then B, if Zimmerman was justified, then evidence of this fact can be expected. But if not-B, then we know nothing of A. Just because Zimmerman didn't find evidence supporting his affirmation of self-defense, doesn't tell us whether such evidence existed, because his lawyers knew that under Florida's broken legal system, doing that legwork was unnecessary so they didn't do it.

What is "actual justice" in this scenario? Leaving "A" as an unknown is not actual justice. Demanding that the defense make an attempt at "B" so that we know the true state of "A" is actual justice. That's common law, and that's the law in states that aren't Florida.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Translation: The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies.
The prosecution asserts who killed whom, so that's why the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
After who killed whom is established, the defense can assert that it was self defense. This is called an "affirmative defense." The common law principle you quoted is precisely why in this circumstance it is the defense who generally must present proof. The defense is the side that's asserting something, so it only makes sense that the side making the assertion is the one that should prove it. Note: the burden is lower for an affirmative defense than for a prosecution; merely a preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. So the scales are still biased in favor of not-guilty.

That the burden of proof is on he who affirms, is logically equivalent to what OAW said already: that it doesn't make sense for either party to have to prove a negative. Each side only has to prove what they are asserting. So, OAW probably owes you a thank-you for supporting his post with such latin-y validation.

^^^

Had 6 years of Latin in school myself. Many moons ago. You beat me to the punch on the translation.

OAW

[OAW]

Snow-i,

No one said GZ presented "no evidence". The problem is that the evidence he presented demonstrated a scuffle. Not something that warranted deadly force. Certainly not the "head being smashed repeatedly into concrete" or "25-30 punches to the face" he claimed. But the point that Uncle Skeleton and I are making is that in Florida the jury doesn't get to "weigh the evidence". GZ didn't have to "convince the jury" that his story wasn't pure, unadulterated BS. He made an affirmation of self-defense ... but he didn't have to burden to prove it. All he had to do was put out some bare minimum evidence of self-defense ... which given his minor injuries was a cakewalk because it clearly showed there was some sort of scuffle ... and from that point on the burden was on the prosecution to overcome a reasonable doubt. Which in this case was nearly impossible because the victim can't tell his side of the story and no one saw the fight start or the shot being fired.

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

^^^

Had 6 years of Latin in school myself. Many moons ago. You beat me to the punch on the translation.

OAW

I'm jealous. I had no years of latin, so I had to outsource this task to the invisible pixies inside my magic internet doohickey

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'm jealous. I had no years of latin, so I had to outsource this task to the invisible pixies inside my magic internet doohickey

Yeah the Latin (and the 5 years of French) came about in my years in prep school. The French is pretty much gone after all this time. I can somewhat read it nowadays. Un peu. But the Latin comes in handy with vocabulary. It still amazes me how often I can come across an unfamiliar word and determine its meaning based on the Latin root.

OAW

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Clearly you didn't ready my post. I specifically said that in the case of a self-defense claim there's a stipulation as to the fact that Person A is dead and Person B is responsible for that death. The question then becomes was it justified or not? As Uncle Skeleton indicated .... "A self-defense burden of a preponderance of the evidence is justice. A self-defense burden of saying a magic incantation of "self defense" is not justice." There is no proving a negative here. There is proving a positive that the killing was, in fact, in self-defense.

No, OAW, the burden of proof does not shift. The foundation of our legal system doesn't get uprooted based on conditions. That's the point I'm making. The State must still prove that a crime was committed. They didn't do that here. They couldn't prove that Zimmerman acted criminally at any point during the incident and therefore couldn't make a case for murder.

The question remains, throughout the whole process, beyond a reasonable doubt did Zimmerman commit a crime?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Shaddim, Snow-i, turtle, BadKosh and others have been intentionally conflating the standard of proof for affirmative and negating defenses. The standard for a regular plain jane negating defense (such as "it wasn't me") is absolutely nothing. No proof. The defendant could be in a coma with no spokesperson or counsel, and if nothing else is done, if no evidence proves it wrong, the defendant has won. If you apply that standard to self-defense, then even though it is beyond any doubt that the defendant killed someone, even if they confessed, then all they have to do is plea "self defense," and suddenly the evidence against them is meaningless. Poof. Magic.

That's quite a jump in logic there, man. Should the state not have criminal evidence enough to convict does not mean the burden shifts to the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. 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 only sane way to go about this, is the way that 49 of the 50 states do it, which they derived from the common law principle that Shaddim posted, which is that the burden of proof is on he who affirms, not him who denies. Under this principle, affirming "self defense" is not a magic shield, it requires he who affirms it to then present evidence supporting that affirmation.

You left a crucial point out of this in that the affirmative defense is to negate the charge the state provides a case that without the affirmative defense, would lead to conviction. When the state can't meet that burden (such as in this case), the defense does not have to provide an affirmative defense and simply providing reasonable doubt is enough to acquit.

If the state had more evidence against Zimmerman, you'd be right. But they didn't. The key here is the charges should have never been brought in the first place for lack of evidence.

If your self-defense was justified, then we as logical, rational, empirical beings can expect there to be some evidence of this fact. I believe that if Zimmerman had been required to present evidence of his affirmation, as he would have under common law dating back centuries, then he would have been able to do so if his story was the truth.

Again, the defense is not responsible for a lack of evidence. There wasn't enough to convict, and therefore the "excuse" or affirmative defense did not have to meet any burden.

If A then B, if Zimmerman was justified, then evidence of this fact can be expected. But if not-B, then we know nothing of A. Just because Zimmerman didn't find evidence supporting his affirmation of self-defense, doesn't tell us whether such evidence existed, because his lawyers knew that under Florida's broken legal system, doing that legwork was unnecessary so they didn't do it.

Again, the burden of proof does not shift to the defense when the prosecution can't make a case. It's when they can make a case that the affirmative defense comes into play. They would have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed a crime, to which Zimmerman would provide the affirmative defense. Because the prosecution could not make that case, and reasonable doubt existed without the affirmative defense - the only option is to acquit.

From Wikipedia

Burden of proof[edit]
Affirmative defenses' burden of proof is on the defendant to prove its allegations either by the preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence, as opposed to ordinary defenses (claim of right, alibi, infancy, necessity, and (in some jurisdictions, e.g., New York) self-defense (which is an affirmative defense at common law)), for which the prosecutor has the burden of disproving beyond a reasonable doubt.

Emphasis mine.

What is "actual justice" in this scenario? Leaving "A" as an unknown is not actual justice. Demanding that the defense make an attempt at "B" so that we know the true state of "A" is actual justice. That's common law, and that's the law in states that aren't Florida.

Again, you're leaving out the crucial part about the prosecution being unable to complete their allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, leaving the affirmative defense unnecessary. They must first meet that burden for an affirmative defense to be considered needing to meet any standard. That's the crucial step you're failing to acknowledge. They simply needed more evidence which they could not produce. Hence, not guilty.

[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.

As for the "ducking and dodging", in this thread you've been the one behaving like you have the most to lose, which quite frankly is absurd. It appears that you so much want to believe every scrap of information in favor of the prosecution, that in your mind you've reworked events to completely discount everything the defense said. You aren't Trayvon Martin, and from what I've seen, you never were. Pre-Zimmerman trial, and in other threads running concurrently, your statements and demeanor here in the PL, and the forum at large, have a near-infinite degree more in common with an altogether different "TM" (Thurgood Marshall) than that troubled teen/delinquent in Florida.

Skin color, and race in general, doesn't mean a hill of shit, and until we stop acknowledging that it does, by recognizing and accentuating differences, rather than all of our similarities, culturally this country isn't going to evolve beyond where we are right now. I'm so damned sick of race that I can almost literally bite nails in half. As an example, until we all stop being "African Americans", "Hispanic Americans", "Asian Americans", infinitum ad nauseam, the qualifiers are going to be what people "see" first, they are a part of what now segregates us.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

According to who? Certainly not Rachel Jeantel. And no one else heard that. So you are basing this on what? And in the meantime I'd appreciate a simple answer to my simple question. Unless of course you fully intend to continue with this ....

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

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

To say there was no evidence of self defense is a dishonest representation of the evidence.

But obviously he didn't have to. Because if he had, then what he presented wouldn't have sufficed. The jury members have even said that they didn't believe his story, but the law (as read to them) forced them to acquit no matter what his evidence was, because "self defense" in Florida is a magic password to freedom, because it forces the prosecution to prove a negative.

Zimmerman's wounds along with the neighbors testimony that he was screaming for his life satifies a preponderence of the evidence that Zimmerman acted in self defense.

It most certainly does not. All it proves is that Zimmerman was, at some moment, losing a fight which he might or might not have started.

Certain circumstances are necessary in order for self-defense to be justified, and having started a fight or committed a crime (like assault, battery, false imprisonment, stalking, or brandishing) that put you in that fight does not qualify.

In order to convict him, the state would have to show beyond a reasonable doubt (a higher standard) that Zimmerman was not infact acting so.

There was already proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin. Even without the confession. You have been talking like the police could descend on any innocent person and put them in Zimmerman's shoes, which couldn't be further from the truth. Almost no innocent person will ever be in danger of that, because almost no innocent person has been or will be in the situation of having already killed someone. It is an extraordinary circumstance, and it merits extraordinary explanation.

In 49 other states, there are plenty of cases of people going to jail for trying to defend themselves (up to and including justifiable homicide).

Unless you're about to explain why they are unable to show evidence of their extraordinary circumstances, this isn't relevant.

Try being black and defending yourself against an overzealous cop in Maryland, and see where that gets you.

Ok, in what way does being black interfere with your ability to present evidence in support of an affirmation you make in court?

Try being black and defending yourself against an overzealous cop in Maryland, and see where that gets you. I personally...

From one non-sequitur to an even less-sequitur. Are you black? I'm not trying to be nosy or anything, I'm just trying to figure out how one part of your argument relates to the next.

but unfortunately the courts have granted the cops pretty much a higher credibility by default in a courtroom, meaning whatever they say goes.

So... you agree with me about self-defense cases, so long as a police is neither the victim, suspect or witness?

The burden to prove guilt must always be on the state.

No, (as Shaddim helpfully cited) the burden to prove anything must always be on the side affirming that thing. In 99% of cases, the only thing being affirmed is the accusation of being guilty of a crime. Therefore, by a casual, lazy observation, your summary would be accurate, most of the time. The exceptions to this are few and they have a name, they are called affirmative defenses. Self-defense is one of them.

What more could Zimmerman have done in the situation to ensure there'd be enough evidence to clear his name? "Hold on Trayvon, let me document this before you beat my ass so that my self-defense will stand in court"

Good question. What more could a hypothetical bank robber do to get out of the bank he was robbing, once the tables were turned on him? He's in a tight spot then, because even if he wins the fight, he has to be punished for the crimes he committed in order to win it.

At this point this case is nothing more then a means to an end for the leftist political machine, they don't care that they're setting race relations back 20 years by getting the public in an outrage.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Translation: The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies.
The prosecution asserts who killed whom, so that's why the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
After who killed whom is established, the defense can assert that it was self defense. This is called an "affirmative defense." The common law principle you quoted is precisely why in this circumstance it is the defense who generally must present proof. The defense is the side that's asserting something, so it only makes sense that the side making the assertion is the one that should prove it. Note: the burden is lower for an affirmative defense than for a prosecution; merely a preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. So the scales are still biased in favor of not-guilty.

That the burden of proof is on he who affirms, is logically equivalent to what OAW said already: that it doesn't make sense for either party to have to prove a negative. Each side only has to prove what they are asserting. So, OAW probably owes you a thank-you for supporting his post with such latin-y validation.

I don't for a second believe this charade that you can't tell the difference between not doing something and being allowed to do something under specific exceptional circumstances.

Nice try to twist this around, but it doesn't stop what you're saying from being BS. As is founded by precedence, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, since they are the ones asserting that a crime was committed. Killing isn't a crime, the State must prove that a killing is in violation of a law. What courts "should do" doesn't apply, unless you change the structure of the American legal system, as it currently exists today.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

That's quite a jump in logic there, man. Should the state not have criminal evidence enough to convict does not mean the burden shifts to the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

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.

Only in cases where the state has the evidence to convict does the affirmative defense common law doctrine apply.

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

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.

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.

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

You left a crucial point out of this in that the affirmative defense is to negate the charge the state provides a case that without the affirmative defense, would lead to conviction.

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

When the state can't meet that burden (such as in this case), the defense does not have to provide an affirmative defense and simply providing reasonable doubt is enough to acquit.

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

Again, the defense is not responsible for a lack of evidence.

Both sides are responsible for lack of evidence, 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.

There wasn't enough to convict, and therefore the "excuse" or affirmative defense did not have to meet any burden.

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.

Again, the burden of proof does not shift to the defense when the prosecution can't make a case. It's when they can make a case that the affirmative defense comes into play.

^^^ 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

They would have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed a crime, to which Zimmerman would provide the affirmative defense. Because the prosecution could not make that case, and reasonable doubt existed without the affirmative defense.

No problem. Zimmerman shot Martin to death. This is beyond a reasonable doubt. Doing that is a crime, except with an affirmative defense. How can you claim Zimmerman didn't need an affirmative defense? "Without the affirmative defense" means without self-defense. Without self-defense, the killing in this case is definitely a crime. How in the world was there reasonable doubt if this wasn't self-defense? Are you denying that Zimmerman actually killed Martin, or are you denying that this killing would have been a crime if it wasn't self-defense?

Burden of proof[edit]
Affirmative defenses' burden of proof is on the defendant to prove its allegations either by the preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence, as opposed to ordinary defenses (claim of right, alibi, infancy, necessity, and (in some jurisdictions, e.g., New York) self-defense (which is an affirmative defense at common law)), for which the prosecutor has the burden of disproving beyond a reasonable doubt.

Did you miss the part I bolded here?

Again, you're leaving out the crucial part about the prosecution being unable to complete their allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, leaving the affirmative defense unnecessary. They must first meet that burden for an affirmative defense to be considered needing to meet any standard. That's the crucial step you're failing to acknowledge.

I didn't think it was necessary to acknowledge the undeniable: that Zimmerman shot Martin to death, which would be a crime without an affirmative defense. Which part of that sentence do you disagree with?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

As for the "ducking and dodging", ....

So in other words you aren't going to provide a simple answer to a simple question. My purpose with the question was to present a plausible scenario ... one that I am by no means alone in thinking happened based on the evidence ... and see if you could bring yourself to say that if that were the case TM would have been justified to strike GZ. Or not. I've posed it three times and yet you refuse to answer. Which is odd because a simple yes or no would suffice. But I certainly won't badger you about it because AFAIC your ducking the question speaks volumes in and of itself. So we'll just leave it at that.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Nice try to twist this around, but it doesn't stop what you're saying from being BS. As is founded by precedence, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, since they are the ones asserting that a crime was committed. Killing isn't a crime, the State must prove that a killing is in violation of a law. What courts "should do" doesn't apply, unless you change the structure of the American legal system, as it currently exists today.

Huh? Killing isn't a crime?

What's an affirmative defense?

An affirmative defense is a justification for the defendant having committed the accused crime. It differs from other defenses because the defendant admits that he did, in fact, break the law. He is simply arguing that he has a good reason for having done so, and therefore should be excused from all criminal liability.

In criminal trials, the most common affirmative defenses include self-defense, defense of others and insanity. Duress, entrapment and involuntary intoxication are used less often.

To see how one of these defenses works, let's look at the pending Trayvon Martin trial. George Zimmerman will undoubtedly argue that he acted in self-defense as defined by Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. There's absolutely no question that he killed Martin. If he can successfully prove he acted in self-defense, the law says he cannot be convicted of murder. He will go free.

What Is an Affirmative Defense? - FindLaw Blotter

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. Period. By definition homicide is a de facto crime UNLESS the defendant can show some sort of reason why he should not be subject to criminal liability. I'll reiterate Uncle Skeleton's words to you since you and Snow-i are making this argument.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

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.

I'll wait.

OAW

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

So in other words you aren't going to provide a simple answer to a simple question. My purpose with the question was to present a plausible scenario (one that I am by no means alone in thinking happened based on the evidence) and see if you could bring yourself to say that if that were the case TM would have been justified to strike GZ. Or not. I've posed it three times and yet you refuse to answer. Which is odd because a simple yes or no would suffice. But I certainly won't badger you about it because AFAIC your ducking the question speaks volumes in and of itself. So we'll just leave it at that.

OAW

Oh FFS, again you're reading into something far more than is necessary, I didn't even know which question you were talking about me "ducking" until now (though you assumed I did because your blood is up). No, I don't feel that a civilian has the right to physically detain someone, but there's no proof Zimmerman tried to do that or that he ever even made physical contact with Martin until after Martin hit him. Why didn't Trayvon just talk to him? "Hey man, what's going on?" "Why are you following me? I'm just heading home." After all, as you pointed out earlier, Zimmerman was the community-appointed Neighborhood Watch captain.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Oh FFS, again you're reading into something far more than is necessary, I didn't even know which question you were talking about me "ducking" until now (though you assumed I did because your blood is up). No, I don't feel that a civilian has the right to physically detain someone, but there's no proof Zimmerman tried to do that or that he ever even made physical contact with Martin until after Martin hit him. Why didn't Trayvon just talk to him? "Hey man, what's going on?" "Why are you following me? I'm just heading home." After all, as you pointed out earlier, Zimmerman was the community-appointed Neighborhood Watch captain.

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 ...

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Nice try to twist this around, but it doesn't stop what you're saying from being BS.

I can always tell I'm winning an argument when the other person starts using nonspecific contentless attacks. So... thanks?

As is founded by precedence, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, since they are the ones asserting that a crime was committed.

That burden was amply met, by the evidence that Zimmerman shot Martin to death.

Killing isn't a crime, the State must prove that a killing is in violation of a law.

Killing is a crime, except in certain circumstances called affirmative defenses. This killing most certainly would have been a crime if it was not self-defense. Do you disagree with that statement?
Self-defense is an affirmative defense. The burden of proof is on he who affirms not him who denies, under common law. Florida's law is a departure from common law.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Why didn't Trayvon just talk to him? "Hey man, what's going on?" "Why are you following me? I'm just heading home."

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.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Huh? Killing isn't a crime?

Nope. Manslaughter and murder are examples where killing can be classified as a crime, killing in and of itself is simply an action. Punching someone isn't a crime, boxers do it for a living, but if you do it out on the street you could be charged with aggravated assault.

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. Period. By definition homicide is a de facto crime UNLESS the defendant can show some sort of reason why he should not be subject to criminal liability. I'll reiterate Uncle Skeleton's words to you since you and Snow-i are making this argument.

I'll wait.

You won't wait long. Zimmerman did walk, until the SAG decided there was enough public opinion against him to drag him back in and charge him.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Nope. Manslaughter and murder are examples where killing can be classified as a crime, killing in and of itself is simply an action. Punching someone isn't a crime, boxers do it for a living, but if you do it out on the street you could be charged with aggravated assault.
.

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