General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat was the Zimmerman defense?
There are so many here claiming that Zimmermen walking was the right thing, it must be real easy for them to tell us what the defense was.
Well, out with it. What was it that won the case for Zimmerman?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
pipoman
(16,038 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)That the kid was a threat to a man with a gun? Zimmerman knew he had a gun. He knew who the real threat was.
Who ended up dead? Who was the real threat?
pipoman
(16,038 posts)that was "the defense"...it almost always is in criminal cases..
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)There is no doubt about that.
He knew his gun would win any fight, so why did he feel threatened? He knew he would win any fight since he had a gun. He had no cause to feel in danger. He wasn't in ultimate danger. He isn't dead, Trayvon is.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman DID NOT use self-defense in the killing of Trayvon Martin.
Yes, that's right. They had to prove a negative. They had to prove that a reasonable person would NOT fear for their lives or great bodily harm in those circumstances and need to use deadly force.
Think about that for a second. They had to listen to the story of a killer that he did not really have to prove in any way, and prove it wrong. The only witnesses were a killer and the boy he killed.
Is it any wonder they didn't convict that piece of shit? I'm starting to wonder how they ever convict anyone who claims self-defense if there are no witnesses.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)That's what I am trying to figure out. How could a jury be convinced that the person still alive was the one in greatest danger.
The whole time Zimmerman knew he could kill the boy with just a simple pull of the trigger. He was always the greatest threat and he proved he was the greatest threat.
onenote
(42,739 posts)since you wouldn't apply unless the person acting in self defense was already dead.
Interesting logic.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)I do not believe Zimmerman acted as best he could in self defense, but as the evidence shows, as the best killer. He knew he could easily kill. He had the gun. Pretty simple. He had the responsibility to act responsible. That is why he was charged. Even tho the cops wanted to let him go, they realized he had to be charged.
Still have not found the grounds for his being absolved of killing as he knew he could.
Igel
(35,337 posts)No "greater danger."
If the jury believed that a reasonable person in GZ's situation would fear for his life, and a reasonable person with a gun would use it, then it's justifiable homicide. Not justified. Justifiable. It's something that can happen, reasonably. Not a good thing, but not something that you could be condemned for.
One requirement is that if you can retreat you have to retreat. If there's an escape and you don't take it, self defense isn't an option. So the prosecutor had two things to show--no reasonable fear, and/or GZ could retreat and failed to.
The prosecutor had to show that GZ couldn't reasonably be in danger for his life. Not that GZ couldn't be a wuss and be terrified. And he had to establish that beyond reasonable doubt. That's not so easy, since nobody has a clue as to what happened from the time GZ hung up until the shot was fired. Everybody claims the scream was from their guy; nobody's trustworthy, or at least nobody's more trustworthy than anybody else. That lack of evidence almost screams for reasonable doubt. The prosecutor has to show what threat GZ was under wasn't serious. The prosecutor couldn't show squat. He had very close to nothing.
The injuries on the back of GZ's head people discount, but that's mostly because if GZ had injuries then TM did something not so nice. The best that anybody's willing to entertain about TM is that he fought against a possible assailant as he was taught to do. It's almost like people are afraid that if TM did something wrong or less than perfect then ... I don't know. Too many options--it would taint the purity of the evil that GZ is, it would mean that this wasn't a case in which racism was on trial and could be defeated, it would mean that somebody could blame the victim for something, it would mean that somebody somewhere might think that a 17-year-old black kid might be dangerous. Too many options, most of them making Trayvon and GZ into symbols.
The second thing the prosecutor could show was that GZ could retreat and failed to do so. That's all the "who's on top" business. Good, not so reliable as a witness. but the ballistics expert did it. GZ was on the bottom, firing upward and very close range. Given the other testimony, that nailed it. GZ had no retreat. It doesn't matter who threw the first punch. If GZ couldn't retreat and was in fear for his life, the presumption is he would have retreated. More of that "presumed innocent" business.
The defense's case was simple. To show that there was enough doubt that it was plausible that a reasonable person in GZ's situation--dark night, head injuries, kid stradding his torso--would be in fear and, if that reasonable person had a gun, would plausibly use it. Nobody had to show that this was what happened. Could it have happened? Sure. If it could have happened, then you have reasonable doubt that the prosecution proved a reasonable person wouldn't be afraid and use lethal force. That's not a big task.
And the other thing was retreat. When the ballistics guy testified it was very reasonable to assume that GZ had no retreat. He was on the bottom. 160 lbs of teenager was on his chest. Nobody showed that the injuries to the back of his head were caused by anything other than what the defense claimed. No retreat, self defense is a possibility.
That's the defense's case. Reasonble doubt. The defense has to prove nothing except that what the prosecution said happened wasn't necessarily so. (And, to be honest, the prosecution didn't prove what happened. That made the defense' job almost pro forma, just a safety net.)
Yes, GZ killed TM. But not every homicide is punished. Some are pure accidents, no negligence and no fault found. Others are self defense, and that might be because the dead person got carried away or just because there was confusion about what might happen. In other cases there's a lack of evidence. The GZ case is a mix--the prosecution had a shortage of evidence. It's easy to assemble the evidence into a convincing story of what might have happened; but the prosecutor had to assemble the evidence into a convincing story of what must almost certainly have happened. And self-defense made it harder.
The trial is not about the dead. The trial was about justice for GZ. There was reasonable doubt as to whether he was guilty. There was reasonable doubt about whether he had committed the act with a depraved mind, there was reasonable doubt that he killed TM in self defense. It was a bad case. But justice is about the living, not the dead.
When I lived in LA I visited somebody down in Palos Verdes and he told us about his neighbors. They had an SUV. Elderly couple. The man had backed the SUV out of the garage and left it running. He went to the garage door and called his wife. She went out the front door. He closed and locked the garage door and climbed in the SUV. Wife wasn't in the vehicle, so he assumed she walked down the sidewalk to check the mail. He pushed the remote to close the garage door and backed up, as he often did, to pick her up at the mailbox. The sound of the garage door plus the radio covered the sounds of her screams as he ran her over. She'd noticed that their grandkid's bike was in the driveway and had bent down to move it. Apparently she dropped her purse. She was below the back window of the SUV the entire time and even if he checked he wouldn't have seen her because she was right at the bumper. She died. No reason for him to be charged with anything. He lost his wife, the mother of his kids and grandmother of his grandkids as they were going out for lunch. "Justice" is a funny concept. I don't know what "justice" would have meant for the woman. The man got no justice. He'd accidentally killed his wfie and suffered until his death a couple of years later.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)That the prosecution was so incompetent that they could not prove Z was armed and dangerous and provoked the altercation, and that Z knew he would win any battle because he had a gun Seems like an easy case to me.
That only goes to show me that the law did not care, because it was a black kid who died at the end of a gun used by a man who caused the whole situation.
melm00se
(4,993 posts)and it bears repeating here:
there are things you think
there are things you know
there are things you can prove
in court, the only things that count are the things you can prove.
SeaLyons
(3,559 posts)that at the time TM punched GZ, the gun was already out. It was impossible for TM to either see the gun or touch the gun when GZ was on his back. I believe GZ pulled his gun as soon as he was face to face with TM, and it was TM screaming for his life. The prosecution hinted at that theory with the dummy, but did a lousy job overall.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Their defense was pure self-defense, the same law on books in all 50 states. Prosectors did a poor job proving guilt, defense attorneys did a good job creating doubt. Jury bought the defense's story.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)FL law has been posted here several times.
My point is that a defendant need only say self -defense and that is assumed to be true. He does not have to back up or prove his story in any way. The state must then prove that the defendant's story is false. They have to prove the defendant wasn't in fear for their life or bodily harm.
It seems like an almost impossible task unless you have a very good witness or history between the accused and victim.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...the difference between SYG and self defense. In self defense, the burden of proof is on the defense to prove it was a justifiable homicide. It is SYG where the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove it wasn't justifiable homicide.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Just Saying
(1,799 posts)You haven't been following the conversations here or the case apparently. 
I know the difference between the two and SYG was not used here, however in SD, there is no burden of proof for the defense. None. That's how the law is written.
Please read up on this case (which was self-defense NOT SYG) and the way self-defense law is written in FL. The burden was all on the prosecutor and yes, it's stupid and unfair, but it is the law.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)in place to protect the innocent from both prosecution and conviction necessarily result in guilty going free..
Every criminal defense team try to determine the evidence and case the state will present, then attempt to find reasonable doubt to that evidence/claim/witness..point by point..at every recess during the prosecution's presentation the defense is working on the last items presented..then when the defense case is made, they present anything they have to create doubt on every aspect of the prosecutions case.
Anyone who watched this case couldn't possibly know beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty based on the evidence presented..he very well may be..nobody knows exactly what happened except Zimmerman
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Zimmerman had a gun. He knew he was not in the most danger. Certainly Trayvon was the one in most danger.
Seems the prosecution should have been able to show that simple fact. Unless they did not want to win?
We should all be calling for federal charges. This isn't over yet.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)What should he be charged with?
The defense stated he was having his head beat on the concrete. A witness testified martin was on top of him. True or false it is hard to deny that since there were no witnesses to the contrary, it might have happened that way..maybe the chance is only 5%, but if one is to be honest it is impossible to state with 100% certainty what happened that night.
Some people don't believe in self defense as a defense..most of society believes a person has a right to defend themselves...as stated in extending that some guilty will go free to limit the number of innocent who are convicted..
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Either it was reasonable for him to perceive he was in danger of great bodily harm, or not. The state had to prove that it was not reasonable for him to perceive that.
It's not even required that his perception is correct. Just that he reasonably perceived the threat.
It's why Casey Anthony got off. If the state can't prove something beyond a reasonable doubt, then they are not supposed to be found guilty. We wouldn't want it otherwise, would we? That people are found guilty even though the prosecution didn't prove its case?
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)And I don't believe his story about how it happened. The problem is, even if the jury doesn't believe him, they may not have been able to say not guilty because the prosecution couldn't prove what they don't know-which is what really happened.
I think he got expensive lawyers and bought his way out of a murder charge with donations from Fox News viewers.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)but this high profile case would have gotten him excellent free representation. I once worked with a very good criminal lawyer, perhaps the best practicing in a 1 million population area..he offered free representation for Dennis Rader just for the publicity..a mind set that is one reason I no longer do defense work..
pintobean
(18,101 posts)Then he found out about the donations and made Zim pay. It was about 150,000, but I doubt that came close to covering his normal fees. He's probably betting on the draw.
onenote
(42,739 posts)Interesting. But unsupported by decades and decades of law.
This guy was acquitted of stabbing someone who threatened him with a bag of stereos. Another miscarriage of justice?http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2012/03/judge_cites_stand_your_ground.php
pintobean
(18,101 posts)dead. 
If they are the only one with a gun and they have not warned the other they have a gun, they are not fighting fairly. Self defense in this case is not real justice being done.
If Zimmerman had an open exposed gun, Trayvon would probably still be alive. Concealed guns are a real danger and any use of one should meet the highest threshold for use. Zimmerman was never in as much danger as Trayvon was. There is no doubt of that fact.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)this isn't the play ground..
"Zimmerman was never in as much danger as Trayvon was."
You've said this now a couple of times, how exactly do you quantify such a thing? What does it have to do with this criminal case?
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)"....how exactly do you quantify such a thing" as Zimmerman was not really in as much danger as Trayvon.
It is quite evident who is dead, isn't it? Pretty simple as to who was in the most danger.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)by that logic, in another scenario, a woman walking down the street is attacked, she pulls a legally possessed gun and shoots the attacker, the attacker was, by your definition, "in the most danger".
You didn't answer what who was in "the most danger" (completely subjective and impossible to determine) has to do with this case..
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Did GZ comment on that in his written statements or video? I haven't heard anything about that.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)So in your opinion no one without a gun can ever defend themselves? (As I believe Trayvon was.)
Lets be honest, should it be legal for a weak asshole to start fights and then shoot the guy when they get their ass handed to them? Not even saying in this case, but in general. I'm sure you can see the problem with allowing gun owners to fire at will without concern for ramifications. We need to value life more than that.
onenote
(42,739 posts)A person who is in imminent fear of death or great bodily harm or about to be the victim of a forcible felony may use deadly force to protect themselves. They don't have to figure out what sort of deadly force to according to some sliding scale. (In other words someone who has a knife in his pocket who is attacked by someone with a brick doesn't have to look around for a brick to fight back; he can use the knife). Its not my opinion. Its the law and has been for eons.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)Which is that Trayvon may have been defending himself from death or great bodily harm from Zimmerman. I think it's fairly obvious that there is a huge difference between the person with the gun and the person who is unarmed. And as far as the sidewalk as a weapon, well Zimmerman had access to the sidewalk too and that argument was frankly ridiculous.
And I'm sorry, but gun people who defend Zimmerman aren't credible. If everything and anything is as deadly as a gun then you all don't need to pack all the time. Right?
onenote
(42,739 posts)Yes, he may have. But all that means is that there is reasonable doubt as to what happened. And where there is reasonable doubt, the verdict goes to the defendant.
Virginia lacrosse player Yeardley Love was killed by being bashed against a wall by her boyfriend. If she had a gun and had used it when he first grabbed her (but before he actually bashed her against the wall), would you convict or acquit her?
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)Besides I'm not disputing the validity of self-defense. I'm saying that the way the law is written, the defendant's version of events is given too much weight without having any burden of proof attached to it.
In the Zimmerman case, not only was he presumed innocent, but his story doesn't have to be proved at all the the jury thereby presuming Trayvon is guilty.
That doesn't seem right.
onenote
(42,739 posts)To get self defense to the jury, the court must assume the truthfulness of the defense evidence and otherwise view the evidence in the light most favorable to the defense. At that point, however, the jury is free to decide on its own whether they believe the defense version of events or not.
I've given several hypotheticals in which there is no witness and the state and the defendant have equally plausible versions of what transpired. You would convict the defendant in those cases. I would acquit.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)On a defendant who kills someone. Not saying they're guilty, but taking a life should warrant an explanation that requires proof in the law. Innocent until proven guilty, but we know for a fact this person ended a life and they should have to prove why.
A case for self-defense, at least in Florida requires only the defendant to say so and has to prove nothing. And if he killed the victim and there are no other witnesses, I think the prosecutors would be hard pressed to prove the negative the law requires.
FYI according to another poster, in Ohio the defendant does have to prove with a preponderance of the evidence that their claim of self-defense is valid. If true, then my state has it right, IMO.
Here, found a bit about it online and this was upheld by the USSC:
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/480/228/
Just a bit of it as the article is long.
naaman fletcher
(7,362 posts)If the burden of proof is on the defendant, then by definition that is guilty until proven innocent.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)Zimmerman killed someone. They're not trying to prove that and it is a crime, but I'd he wants to say it was self-defense then he should have to prove something. But the law in FL doesn't give him any burden at all.
Please read my answer above for how Ohio handles self-defense. It's exactly what I think should happen for self-defense.
naaman fletcher
(7,362 posts)
JI7
(89,261 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)I could see if Trayvon pulled a gun. Only Zimmerman had a gun. Who was the real danger here? And who was in the most danger?
leftstreet
(36,110 posts)
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Martin was NOT on top of Zimmerman striking his head against the pavement.
The prosecution's own arguments acknowledge Martin on top of Zimmerman for at least part of the fight.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)But he had a gun, and so he knew he had the upper hand. Did he ever show Trayvon the gun? Did he warn Trayvon?
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)If he showed Trayvon the gun before the fight started, something not proven, then it was brandishing, which is a crime. Announcing he had a gun before the fight started, also not proven, could be considered threatening, which is also a crime.
The threshold for deadly force is very clear, a reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm is the threshold. Reasonable is defined as would an average person, in this case the jury, think that if they were in the same position, they would feel in fear of death or grave bodily harm.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)Winning the fight as a legal reason for deadly force.
And it's bullshit that the prosecution has to prove a negative beyond a reasonable doubt that was never proved in any way on the first place.
Zimmerman played the system and won but we all know he killed a kid.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)A reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm is the threshold.
It does NOT mean you have to wait to be seriously hurt.
And if you don't understand that, I have a very simple question for you:
How many times will you allow me to hit your head against the pavement before you think you have a reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm?
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)And I'm not going to debate the facts of tHe case anymore. I don't believe anything Zimmerman said. None of it. He's a lying sack of crap and he got away with murder.
The Magistrate
(95,251 posts)ConcernedCanuk
(13,509 posts).
.
.
did he need killing?
does anyone?
as you probably know, in Canada we are not allowed to carry guns,
nor do we have a death penalty for even the worst crimes.
Oh yes, there are those that carry and use guns up here, but not legally.
We are legally allowed to own firearms, mostly rifles for hunting or target shooting.
Handguns require a special permit, and must only be used at shooting ranges, transported in special locked cases - never on your person or in your glove box of the car.
Back to your comment "'Boy Needed Killing'"
Is that your opinion, or am I misunderstanding your posture?
CC
JI7
(89,261 posts)and those who acquitted him.
the boy, and more importantly the BLACK boy needed killing.
that is what the defense position was.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I have seen posts explaining reasonable doubt, and a few people have said that they think it was Zimmerman yelling "help", so some might say that was justification, but I disagree.
He wasn't found guilty because it's an imperfect system and Trayvon was at a disadvantage the whole time, from the time he was born and through that night, the fact that police didn't investigate and on and on...
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)But as a legal case, what was it that made the killer go free?
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Only one side of the story was told and GZ was apparently able to convince the jury that TM was beating him up.
I didn't watch much of the coverage, to be fair.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)They had to prove George Zimmerman was NOT acting in self defense;that he wasn't in fear of his life. Yes, you read that correctly. They were tasked with proving the impossible.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)If I get off the bus late at night and get jumped on the way home and let's say get the attacker in the carotid with my keys in the struggle. Or I grab a broken beer bottle and stab them. Or I get a punch to the nose that drives it back?
How do I prove I was acting in self defense? Please keep in mind I just got off the bus late at night so my expert witnesses and forensics experts budget might be tight.
What evidence do I have to present? Why is it that I get attacked and I'm in trouble and fighting for my life again? You don't see how this can turn into a problem?
Owl
(3,643 posts)... and had absolutely no alternative than to kill the innocent child.
Fuck Zimmerman.
Response to RobertEarl (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)in the mind of the jurors.
At first, neighbor Jonathan Good thought he was seeing a dog attack. But as he looked closer, he testified Friday, he saw two figures locked in “a tussle” in the grass near his townhouse in the Retreat at Twin Lakes gated community. The man on the bottom yelled, “Help,” Good told jurors.
The figures shifted to the concrete walkway, and that’s when Good says he saw the dark-clothed person — who he now knows was Martin — straddle the man in red. The figure on top was “raining down blows” and was using moves similar to a mixed martial arts (MMA) combatant, Good said.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-28/politics/40249002_1_george-zimmerman-zimmerman-trial-trayvon-martin
This was a credible witness with no apparent reason to lie.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Did the prosecution ask Good if he liked black kids?
Did the prosecution ask Good anything at all that would establish he was biased?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Both prosecution witnesses and defense witnesses.
Also, I didn't see any witnesses being asked whether they liked Hispanic dudes.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)This was about Zimmerman hating black kids. How the heck could they ignore that fact?
I am coming around to the idea which is most distasteful; The law saw a dead black kid and said: "Ho, hum, so what". And that comes from the responses here, including yours, Nye.
mstinamotorcity2
(1,451 posts)and the Arizona Watermelon drink sprung a leak defense.
LeftInTX
(25,504 posts)I'm not sure of the details because I didn't watch the trial. But I did read it on a MSM media site.
Zimmerman's stories changed quite a bit. Trayvon's DNA was not found on the Zimmerman's gun. However, I don't know if the gun was checked for Trayvon's finger prints.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)and may have touched the holster. Not the gun. It was at that point that GZ says TM said, "You're gonna die tonight."
The gun & holster were checked for DNA. TM's dna was not found on the gun (of course) but not on the holster, either.
But the crime scene wasn't preserved very well. The gun and holster weren't bagged, it was drizzling I guess still, TM's hands weren't bagged and were exposed for a while.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)A really bad prosecution of the homicide? And that just further enforces the idea that because Trayvon was black, it was Zimmerman's best defense?
Normal police procedures were ignored and that is what set him free, for now.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)His defense was stand your ground.
The black man wasn't arrested. The scene wasn't preserved. It was a tussle where one man shot the other to get him off him.
A lawyer on tv explained why the cops don't arrest in those situations right away. It's because they can be sued...when it appears and is explained that it was a tussle between 2 people, and one claims he killed the other in self-defense, they are not supposed to arrest right away. The scene is not presumed to be a crime scene, either.
This hurt the prosecution, of course, since it didn't preserve the evidence like it should have. But they did investigate and take photos and take formal statements, etc. This isn't a large urban area. It's a smaller community, so....
One of the interrogating cops was black. I really think it's pushing to claim one thing after another is because TM was black. I understand where that comes from. But it's not always the case. Having evidence of it would be nice, for one thing. I even heard a black pundit on tv, in a discussion among sseveral pundits about an ethnic non-black female cop's testimony, that maybe she didn't do something because of what Trayvon was (meaning because he was black). I think they were discussing why she didn't get someone to fix the video to accompany her taped interrogation of GZ (the video was broken). His statement was so insulting to that cop and her ethnicity...basically saying she's a racist because she didn't go get someone to fix the video. That was pretty outrageous and a bigoted statement about the cop.
Racial bias happens. But claiming it for everything, when there's no evidence of it, takes away from the seriousness of when it really happens, IMO. Who's gonna listen to someone who cries Wolf all the time?
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)The armed and dangerous man provoked the situation. And he killed the other. He caused it and he killed.
If the law could not prove that they're incompetent. Or racially biased. I'm leaning with racially biased. The cops dropped it at first which goes to show bias. "Just another black kid dead, ho hum."
Really, the case was simple. How the law blew it is the only question at this point. Incompetence or racism?
Lets hope the feds bring him back to court. Obviously those Florida folks are not really into finding true justice.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)names and follow you or whatever...that does not entitle you to hit him. So the fact that GZ was following TM was irrelevant to the legal charges that the jury considered. (They could consider it on their own, as a justice or moral thing...but it wasn't part of the legal charges.)
Once TM hit GZ, that turned the incident into a physical fight, and it became the incident that resulted in criminal charges. A fight. The fact that GZ may have been standing there yelling at TM or calling him names, or vice versa, is background and explanatory, but not part of the legal charges.
If there's a bitch at work (and there's always a bitch at work) that makes your work life miserable, ignoring you, reporting you for small infractions, taking her time at the copy machine, intentionally not giving you copies of things....she is provoking you. Is she doing it because you're black? You're prettier? You're younger? Or you're older? Or she just hates you for whatever reason?
But if you hit her, after being provoked for months, then that turns into something else. She then can defend herself against the physical fight, even though she herself provoked your rage. Under the law, you have no right to hit her, and she has every right to defend herself.
To clarify about the Zimmerman case, I may well have decided on manslaughter. Something is not right about this, that he walks. I find it hard to believe he was in fear of great bodily harm. He was no little guy. He couldn't get one punch in? He couldn't shoot TM in the arm or foot? I don't know. I would have to go through all the evidene with other jurors and deliberate. TM is dead, but I wouldn't want to send someone to prison unless I were absolutely sure.
naaman fletcher
(7,362 posts)Your basic problem is simply that the law is not what you think it is.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)unreadierLizard
(475 posts)that Zimmerman felt threatened enough that he needed to go for his gun, because Trayvon was ontop of him pounding his head into concrete, so it fell under self-defence.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Because he had a gun, he knew he would win the fight and he proved it.
So it wasn't so much self defense as provoking a situation that he knew he had more than self defense, he knew he could be a killer.
His hiding of his gun was defenseless, and he got away with murder. Just like he figured he would.
But he is a marked man, never again to really be free.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Declare grievous harm if something in the future happens (like vote re-counting), then pretend to be the victim as time runs out and then get declared the victim and the winner. No other facts are taken into account or allowed.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)Zimmerman established evidence that an assault by Trayvon Martin took place in the four minutes of missing time. Physical evidence plus an eyewitness backed that up. The prosecution did not successfully rebut that.
Therefore under the law, Zimmerman won his case. Initial "profiling" had nothing to do with it.
spin
(17,493 posts)The jury did not say that he was innocent.
It seems difficult for many who post here to understand the concept of beyond a Reasonable Doubt. This amazes me as this forum appears to appeal to intelligent people.
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.
The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and Convincing Proof is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which money damages are the common remedy.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Beyond+a+Reasonable+Doubt
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)
hack89
(39,171 posts)and prosecution witnesses that collaborated Z's story.
LisaL
(44,974 posts)He claimed he acted in self-defense.
Whiskeytide
(4,462 posts)... Not really, anyway. They are defending the justice system, flawed as it is.
It really is much simpler than a lot of people are making it out to be:
The defense didn't have to "prove" Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman, only that there was reasonable doubt about who was on top.
The defense didn't have to "prove" that it was Zimmerman yelling for help, only that there was some reasonable doubt about who was yelling.
The defense didn't have to "prove" who started the physical altercation, only that there was some reasonable doubt about who threw the first punch.
There are many flaws in our system, and racism is embedded in it undoubtedly. But the outcome of THIS case had much more to do with respective burdens of proof and the quality and weight of the evidence against Zimmerman. That is simply what it was.
If FL had a crime defined as being a stupid, racist cop wannabe with a hero complex, a tough guy fantasy and a concealed carry permit, Zimmerman would be behind bars.
gopiscrap
(23,763 posts)cops and a judge in the bag, gun money, ignorance and racism
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)"I killed him because I had to. Trust me. he was going to kill me. Trust me. I know I'm the defendant, but trust me."
JustAnotherGen
(31,856 posts)And being black means being up to no good in Sanford FL.
Case closed.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)1. I saw a suspicious person who clearly didn't belong in my neighborhood, and identified him as a criminal
2. The suspect tried to evade me, and upon apprehending him after giving chase; he attacked me, just as criminals do
3. I killed the criminal in self-defense, and my neighborhood is safer because of guys like me...
4. If the suspect WASN'T actually a criminal in the act of committing a felony, then it is HIS fault for putting himself in a situation where I had to kill him
