George Zimmerman arrested on aggravated assault charge

[twa]

  Half you guys are saying a 17 year old kid with skittles and an ice tea could over power a grown man with a gun.  I find that hard to believe.  

 

 

Don't know why it is so hard to believe, a gun never stopped a fist when it is not used.

It is not like we are just taking Z at his word

[boobiemiles]

Don't know why it is so hard to believe, a gun never stopped a fist when it is not used.

It is not like we are just taking Z at his word

Of course you are.  A gun never stopped a fist. I bet if you were going to fight with your fist and some one pulled a gun you would stop all signs of aggression.  I know I would.  Are we really trying to say George has shown that he is an upstanding citizen ever since he got a way with murder.  People talk about OJ.  Really?  I wonder how you feel about OJ?  Is the verdict always right?

[twa]

Of course you are.  A gun never stopped a fist. I bet if you were going to fight with your fist and some one pulled a gun you would stop all signs of aggression.  I know I would.  Are we really trying to say George has shown that he is an upstanding citizen ever since he got a way with murder.  People talk about OJ.  Really?  I wonder how you feel about OJ?  Is the verdict always right?

 

why do you ignore the witnesses?....it is rather clear Z was getting beat and on his back

 

Are you saying Z should have pulled a gun on M BEFORE getting beat down?

 

Verdicts are simply accepted versions.

[Predicto]

why do you ignore the witnesses?....it is rather clear Z was getting beat and on his back

 

Are you saying Z should have pulled a gun on M BEFORE getting beat down?

 

Verdicts are simply accepted versions.

 

No they aren't.  

 

In criminal cases, a not guilty verdict means only that the State did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.   It does not mean that the defendant proved his story was true.   IN fact, the defendant doesn't even have to tell his story if he doesn't want to, and he still will win if the State can't satisfy the high burden of proof.

 

However, who started it doesn't matter in the case as it was established that Martins actions during the fight made Zimmerman feel his life was in danger. That's the only thing that really matters. 

 

 

No that was not established.

 

What was established was that the State did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.   Zimmerman didn't have to establish anything, because he was the defendant.   

[boobiemiles]

why do you ignore the witnesses?....it is rather clear Z was getting beat and on his back

 

Are you saying Z should have pulled a gun on M BEFORE getting beat down?

 

Verdicts are simply accepted versions.

Killing me with this "witnesses" statement?  What witnesses? Nobody saw what happened.  George chased Treyvon.  I mean come on man.  You still didn't say if you thought the OJ verdict was right.  And George should have identified himself.  He had the gun.  He had the deadly weapon.  He could have said "I am George Zimmerman neighborhood watch."  George Zimmerman is 5'8 187, Treyvon is 5'11 158.  And George had the gun.  I can't believe that you are trying to sell me on the notion Zimmerman was right in his actions.  From my personal experience I know how frightening it is to be alone in a suburban neighborhood, and some one approaches you out of the blue. I didn't know he was a cop until I saw the badge around their neck.  In my situation I was walking to work.  The police officer just approached me and said "where you going?"  I was shocked. No outward identification of any kind. I'm 16 going to Taco Bell to get my 8.50 an hour.  What if I tried to run because I was scared?  Would I be wrong?  I don't understand.  There is two Americas, and this situation is not right at all.  Some one got away with murdering a kid.  And you think "witnesses", makes it all right.   And stop saying M and Z.  These people have names.  Someone's mother and father had to bury their son.  Another is watching their son die slowly.  The system is suppose to protect the people, not show inequities that still persist in our society.

[sacase]

Of course you are.  A gun never stopped a fist. I bet if you were going to fight with your fist and some one pulled a gun you would stop all signs of aggression.  I know I would.  Are we really trying to say George has shown that he is an upstanding citizen ever since he got a way with murder.  People talk about OJ.  Really?  I wonder how you feel about OJ?  Is the verdict always right?

Doesn't really matter what he has done since then. The law looks at the event that occurred, not how much of an upstanding person her was.

[Larry]

Doesn't really matter what he has done since then. The law looks at the event that occurred, not how much of an upstanding person her was.

Well, it's supposed to.

I think we all know that it really doesn't. That's why there's so much effort spent on trying to make people like or dislike the people involved.

[sacase]

No they aren't.  

 

In criminal cases, a not guilty verdict means only that the State did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.   It does not mean that the defendant proved his story was true.   IN fact, the defendant doesn't even have to tell his story if he doesn't want to, and he still will win if the State can't satisfy the high burden of proof.

 

 

No that was not established.

 

What was established was that the State did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.   Zimmerman didn't have to establish anything, because he was the defendant.   

Actually in a self defense case you have to prove to the jury that your life was in danger. In the Zimmerman case an Affirmative defense was used. They state proved that it satisfied the elements of murder.

[Predicto]

Doesn't really matter what he has done since then. The law looks at the event that occurred, not how much of an upstanding person her was.

 

Zimmerman was acquitted due to lack of evidence of guilt, not because of overwhelming evidence of innocence.  No one knows what happened at "the event that occurred" so he could not be convicted.  That is fine.

 

Every day we see more what kind of a volatile person Zimmerman is, and it makes us wonder even more what really happened that night.  That is fine as well. 

[Predicto]

Actually in a self defense case you have to prove to the jury that your life was in danger. In the Zimmerman case an Affirmative defense was used. They state proved that it satisfied the elements of murder.

 

 

Nope.  The burden is never on the defendant in a criminal case to prove self defense or anything else.   The burden is always on the State to prove a criminal case.  All Zimmerman had to show was a "reasonable doubt" 

 

Here's the relevant case in Florida.

 

"But, with these additional facts, did [the defendant] also incur a burden of proof identical to the State's? That is, did he have to prove the additional facts for self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt?  Or was he instead bound by some lesser standard-say, the greater weight of the evidence? Indeed, how about something even less onerous than that? Was he merely obligated to lay the additional facts before the jury, without any burden as to the strength of their probative value – other than they might be true? The answer is this. No, he did not have to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. He did not have to prove even that his additional facts were more likely true than not.  The real nature of his burden concerning his defense of justification is that his evidence of additional facts need merely leave the jury with a reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force. Hence, if he wanted his self-defense to be considered, it was necessary to present evidence that his justification might

be true. It would then be up to the jury to decide whether his evidence produced a reasonable doubt about his claim of self-defense."

 

Murray v. State of Florida, 937 So.2d 277, 279 (Fla. 4th Dist. 2006)

[twa]

Killing me with this "witnesses" statement?  What witnesses? Nobody saw what happened.  

 

 

a number of people saw part of it

[twa]

 

 

Nope.  The burden is never on the defendant in a criminal case to prove self defense or anything else.   The burden is always on the State to prove a criminal case.  All Zimmerman had to show was a "reasonable doubt" 

 

Here's the relevant case in Florida.

....

 

It would then be up to the jury to decide whether his evidence produced a reasonable doubt about his claim of self-defense."

 

Murray v. State of Florida, 937 So.2d 277, 279 (Fla. 4th Dist. 2006)

 

isn't that the same as saying the evidence presented of self defense is beyond reasonable doubt?.....if reasonable doubt exists on the defense being valid the jurors tend to reject it.

[Larry]

Killing me with this "witnesses" statement?  What witnesses? Nobody saw what happened.

Uh, no, one witness stated, the night of the shooting, that she saw somebody, laying on the ground, with someone on top of him, slamming the person;d head against the ground.

A description which just happens to line up pretty well, with Zimmerman's injuries.

(Now, as I understand it, she described the clothing of the two people in a way that kinda implies that it was Zimm, slamming Treyvon's head against the ground. But me? Given how well her testimony lines up with Zimm's story, and his injuries? I'm willing to say that well, she just got the clothing switched.)

Now, far as I know, nobody saw who started the fight. (Despite twa's continuing attempts to try to claim that Zimm's complete story has been proven to be true.)

 

But, to me, it's pretty well proven that, regardless of who started it, yes, there was a time during the fight, when Zimm was getting his head slammed.  Zimm's story, and his injuries, and this witness' story, just agree too much to conclude anything else. 

[twa]

. (Despite twa's continuing attempts to try to claim that Zimm's complete story has been proven to be true.)

 

 

 

 

Kindly show where I claimed that

 

There were other witnesses as well, John being the most relevant with a pinned ,pleading Z (which illustrates no threat existing to M at that point)

[Predicto]

isn't that the same as saying the evidence presented of self defense is beyond reasonable doubt?.....if reasonable doubt exists on the defense being valid the jurors tend to reject it.

 

No that's not the same.   Read it again.

 the most relevant with a pinned ,pleading Z (which illustrates no threat existing to M at that point)

 

No threat except the gun that killed him a couple of seconds later, of course

[Burgold]

Just as a mental exercise, would Martin had been justified in beating Zimmerman to death? Would you have exonerated him on the basis of self defense?

[Predicto]

Just as a mental exercise, would Martin had been justified in beating Zimmerman to death? Would you have exonerated him on the basis of self defense?

 

 

After all, Zimmerman was packing a gun.   

[twa]

Just as a mental exercise, would Martin had been justified in beating Zimmerman to death? Would you have exonerated him on the basis of self defense?

 

can you present evidence of a deadly threat?

 

the existence of the gun is clearly not sufficient.

No that's not the same.   Read it again.

 

No threat except the gun that killed him a couple of seconds later, of course

 

no need, the notion of self defense was clearly established in the jurors mind beyond reasonable doubt.

 

A unreasonable fear of a gun is no defense.....as you know

[Burgold]

can you present evidence of a deadly threat?

 

the existence of the gun is clearly not sufficient.

 

So, your answer is no then. Using hindsight, we know that Zimmerman would use deadly force.  There is without question evidence of deadly threat. To even question that is absurd.

 

I'll make it cleaner. Same chain of events.

 

Z noticed Martin.

Z followed Martin in his car.

Z called 911 dispatch.

Z disregarded 911 instructions

Z left car and pursued Martin

Z confronted Martin

Z and Martin entered altercation

Z pulls out gun

 

But in this universe, Martin somehow gets the gun away from Martin or continues beating him until Z dies.

 

Is Martin guilty of murder?

[Predicto]

So, your answer is no then. Using hindsight, we know that Zimmerman would use deadly force there is without question evidence of deadly threat. To even question that is absurd.

 

I'll make it cleaner. Same chain of events.

 

Z noticed Martin.

Z followed Martin in his car.

Z called 911 dispatch.

Z disregarded 911 instructions

Z left car and pursued Martin

Z confronted Martin

Z and Martin entered altercation

Z pulls out gun

 

But in this universe, Martin somehow gets the gun away from Martin or continues beating him until Z dies.

 

Is Martin guilty of murder?

 

 

Of course he's guilty of murder.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He's black.  

 

[Burgold]

That's a great gif, Predicto

[twa]

entered altercation   needs fleshing out Burgold.....the point the peace is broken then becomes subject to use of force rules

 

IF (like in the trial) it is demonstrated one side escalated to deadly force the guilt usually falls to them

 

taking a gun away and using it is subject to scrutiny as is the person drawing the gun

[Burgold]

Again, same circumstances as transpired, twa except this time Zimmerman fails to kill Martin w the gun. Same altercation, same chain of events.

If Martin winds up killing Zimmerman is it murder or self defense. The scene is replayed exactly as it transpired except Zimmerman misses or his shots weren't fatal.

[twa]

Again, same circumstances as transpired, twa except this time Zimmerman fails to kill Martin w the gun. Same altercation, same chain of events.

If Martin winds up killing Zimmerman is it murder or self defense. The scene is replayed exactly as it transpired except Zimmerman misses or his shots weren't fatal.

 

clearly murder by Martin since he escalated to deadly force w/o justification......not hard at all

 

Florida law is quite clear

http://www.husseinandwebber.com/case-work/criminal-defense-articles/self-defense-florida/

 

now if he somehow demonstrated himself as no threat after taking the gun and Z provided justification for shooting him he could walk....much higher bar though

[Burgold]

So, there you have it. Being shot at is not enough to make Martin believe his life is under threat nor is being in a fight with the man who just tried to kill him.

If in your mind Martin is guilty then Zimmerman must be as well. He engaged in the same activities, plus he actually pulled the gun and shot.

Either both were in fear for their lives or none were. After all, if getting a gun pulled on you or getting shot at puts you in fear of death then nothing will.