George Zimmerman Trial

[tiger88 934]

100% they still must appease that side.

Which side is that?

the side that is fueled by emotion but short on facts.

One of the few undisputed facts is that GZ killed TM. His attorney asserts it was self defense. Do you think when someone has admitted to killing someone, but claims they get to walk free because he was defending himself that he should testify to make that claim and allow cross examination? Otherwise, it seems to me that you're assuming his claim, not even made under oath or subject to cross examination, is all that is necessary to allow someone known to have killed someone to walk free.

he has told his story enough. He has been wrongfully labeled a racist. He has bee accused of having been fueled by hate and ill will that was not evident on tape. He has been accused of not following an "order" of LE when he was not given one. He talked to police and fully cooperated for the investigation and was not charged until national attention was brought on. This is all EMOTION, not fact.

Your response was all emotion and not a rational response to my question. So much for your arrogance and condescension toward those who disagree with you.

He hasn't told his story at trial. You can't provide a well reasoned response.

there is no need for him to subject himself to cross when the state has not proven him guilty. I didnt know we were arguing the law that allows him not to testify. I didnt write it and have no opinion on it. I have stated facts as i see them. I do not mean to come across as arrogant or condensing.

A guy sees your grandson walking home one night at 7pm, calls the cops and says he doesn't like the looks of him. When the cops arrive he is standing over your grandson's dead body and says he got out his car and had to protect himself against your unarmed grandson so he shot him in a manner guaranteed to kill him. He clearly killed him, but claims he's not guilty because he feared your grandson might hurt him. Case closed? It's too much to ask him to be questioned under oath? And I'm not saying what the law is, but what should it be? If someone just wants to rant the same old rant, don't bother. Asking what is truly just is a valid question among civilized and decent people.

Interesting how you mostly picked out the things about the GZ case that support your stance and left out almost all of the things that would weaken your stance in posing this loaded question. If that's not intellectually dishonest what is?

Of course, your just a cool cucumber watching everyone else become emotionally involved. Lol.

The question is about process-- what should the responsibilities of someone claiming an affirmative defense be? Your head is stuck on the case in FL. I'm asking a larger question. Perhaps there are some here capable of having that discussion. Perhaps not.

In a given case the facts will point one way or another, but the process of getting there should be the same whether one is ultimately guilty or innocent.

Sorry Tex, it's such a silly idea it's hard to follow your thoughts here. Your proposal is absurd. We don't force people to prove their innocence. It's one of the foundations of our legal system that works well. It's better to let a guilty person go than lock an innocent one away based on overzealous gut feelings and having a defendant who may be innocent but not perform well on the stand. It is up to the state to prove guilt, not the defendant to prove innocence. I like it that way.

If there is enough evidence presented against someone they may feel the need to testify, but that is their call.

There is no doubt in my mind that having the "tex" law enacted would result in more innocent people going to jail. There are a lot of hotshot prosecutors out there and a lot of innocent people who can't afford good lawyers to match them.

See above

I'm not looking for anything. Just pointing out the silliness of your new "philisophical" endeavors. Take a step back from the trees and see above yourself and you might see the silliness of what you're trying to accomplish here. You can try to pretend like it is totally disassociated from this case and that would fit right in with your irrationality in this thread.

I realize you're probably drunk, but I clearly said this was for folks who want to have the discussion, not those that just want to rant. I don't recall you ever engaging in meaningful discussion and I've hardly insisted that you do so now. You're monotonous and tiring. Knock yourself out if you wish, but I'm done with your angry childish behavior tonight. Good night.

Tex, go find somewhere there is not a river and cry me one.

[TexasTiger 13,021]

For any rational people on this thread, here is an attorney from Wisconsin making the same point I was trying to make. Apparently, the burden in asserting an affirmative defense varies between jurisdictions. The standard he states is in Wisconsin makes sense to me. If you are claiming you were justified in killing someone, you at least have to prove it was more likely than not that you had a reasonable fear of death or imminent severe injury.

I’m a criminal defense lawyer in Wisconsin, but I’ll tell you my reaction to the Zimmerman verdict today. I’ve had friends in Florida asking for my take. I haven’t watched the trial very closely (it seems like an ordinary criminal case to me in many respects). But I was astounded that the defense would put on a “self-defense” argument without the defendant testifying. In most civilized jurisdictions, the burden is on the defense to prove, at least more likely than not, that the law breaking was done for reasons of self-defense. I couldn’t figure out how they could do this without the defendant’s testimony.

I got curious and read the jury instructions Friday night and, I was wrong. In Florida, if self-defense is even suggested, it’s the states obligation to prove it’s absence beyond a reasonable doubt(!). That’s crazy. But ‘not guilty’ was certainly a reasonable result in this case. As I told in friend in Tampa today though, if you’re ever in a heated argument with anyone, and you’re pretty sure there aren’t any witnesses, it’s always best to kill the other person. They can’t testify, you don’t have to testify, no one else has any idea what happened; how can the state ever prove beyond a doubt is wasn’t self-defense? Holy crap! What kind of system is that?

http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/07/how_much_is_about_florida_law.php?ref=fpblg

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

For any rational people on this thread, here is an attorney from Wisconsin making the same point I was trying to make. Apparently, the burden in asserting an affirmative defense varies between jurisdictions. The standard he states is in Wisconsin makes sense to me. If you are claiming you were justified in killing someone, you at least have to prove it was more likely than not that you had a reasonable fear of death or imminent severe injury.

I’m a criminal defense lawyer in Wisconsin, but I’ll tell you my reaction to the Zimmerman verdict today. I’ve had friends in Florida asking for my take. I haven’t watched the trial very closely (it seems like an ordinary criminal case to me in many respects). But I was astounded that the defense would put on a “self-defense” argument without the defendant testifying. In most civilized jurisdictions, the burden is on the defense to prove, at least more likely than not, that the law breaking was done for reasons of self-defense. I couldn’t figure out how they could do this without the defendant’s testimony.

I got curious and read the jury instructions Friday night and, I was wrong. In Florida, if self-defense is even suggested, it’s the states obligation to prove it’s absence beyond a reasonable doubt(!). That’s crazy. But ‘not guilty’ was certainly a reasonable result in this case. As I told in friend in Tampa today though, if you’re ever in a heated argument with anyone, and you’re pretty sure there aren’t any witnesses, it’s always best to kill the other person. They can’t testify, you don’t have to testify, no one else has any idea what happened; how can the state ever prove beyond a doubt is wasn’t self-defense? Holy crap! What kind of system is that?

http://editors.talki...w.php?ref=fpblg

Why does the defendant ever have to prove anything? I 'm not a lawyer so just asking. I thought the burden of proof was always with the prosecution.

[TexasTiger 13,021]

For any rational people on this thread, here is an attorney from Wisconsin making the same point I was trying to make. Apparently, the burden in asserting an affirmative defense varies between jurisdictions. The standard he states is in Wisconsin makes sense to me. If you are claiming you were justified in killing someone, you at least have to prove it was more likely than not that you had a reasonable fear of death or imminent severe injury.

I’m a criminal defense lawyer in Wisconsin, but I’ll tell you my reaction to the Zimmerman verdict today. I’ve had friends in Florida asking for my take. I haven’t watched the trial very closely (it seems like an ordinary criminal case to me in many respects). But I was astounded that the defense would put on a “self-defense” argument without the defendant testifying. In most civilized jurisdictions, the burden is on the defense to prove, at least more likely than not, that the law breaking was done for reasons of self-defense. I couldn’t figure out how they could do this without the defendant’s testimony.

I got curious and read the jury instructions Friday night and, I was wrong. In Florida, if self-defense is even suggested, it’s the states obligation to prove it’s absence beyond a reasonable doubt(!). That’s crazy. But ‘not guilty’ was certainly a reasonable result in this case. As I told in friend in Tampa today though, if you’re ever in a heated argument with anyone, and you’re pretty sure there aren’t any witnesses, it’s always best to kill the other person. They can’t testify, you don’t have to testify, no one else has any idea what happened; how can the state ever prove beyond a doubt is wasn’t self-defense? Holy crap! What kind of system is that?

http://editors.talki...w.php?ref=fpblg

Why does the defendant ever have to prove anything?

How can the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone didn't fear for their safety? Its an almost impossible burden allowing almost anyone claiming it to walk free. Simply entering enough evidence to persuade a jury that it was more likely than not that one had a reasonable fear of serious injury is not a very high bar. Zimmerman may have been able to reach that burden pretty easily here. Most of you guys seem to think the evidence supports it. Again, my question is about what the process should be when a person admits to killing someone, but says they had to, not the outcome in this case. The process largely preordained the outcome in this case.

BTW, Zimmerman could have avoided trial altogether if he had opted to assert the "stand your ground" defense in a pre-trial immunity hearing. He opted not to.

[homersapien 11,449]

and Trayvon was a saint

well, he didn't kill anyone. Just bought some Skittles-- that bothers you somehow?

You are killing me with the "innocent skittle buyer" routine. Team you up with Homer's "he exited the car, he must live behind bars", Johnny Cochran style tag line, and the two of you are a Prosecution Dream Team!

Then die and go away already.

Are you seriously trying to argue that Trayvon's character or history is justification for shooting him?

And your last sentence infers a racial component to your thinking, which I suppose is at least consistent with the premise that Trayvon's past should be a consideration. Zimmerman was clearly "profiling" him.

Your thoughts here are ludicrous, and your conclusions afa my thoughts are way off.

Saying that I am indicating Trayvon's past is grounds for shooting him is ridiculous on your part.

Actually, it was not a statement. It was a question. That means you get to answer it. So try to at least observe the basics of debate. I am not really interesting in exchanging insults, (at least witless ones).

My point is that it took two to tango that night. I don't believe that GZ had the intent to track and kill him. I believe that TM did some things that brought about his own demise that he EASILY could have avoided. To continuously refer to him as some kind of innocent little Skittle Buyer is beyond amusing and weakens someones argument that they think they are strengthening.

Afa as you playing the race card on my last sentence, that is unfounded. The only possible reason to do that is I mentioned Johnny Cochran and the mention had nothing to do with his race. I'm not sure why you would think it did.

Because I think that a lot of people supporting Zimmerman's case exhibit latent or subliminal racism. The reference to Cochran may or may not have been such a reference, but it struck me as that way. It's not as blatant as AU Raptor (for example) but it is what it is.

Now, having said that, I will be the first to say that we all, including me, have a little racism in our "makeup". But when people start flashing it, I don't have a problem with acknowledging it. You can call it playing the "race card" if you want. I am just pointing out what seems obvious to me.

1) Your question could easily be interpreted as rhetorical, which I did.

2) You are overplaying the race card.

1) Please assume that a question means a question as a default. You can still answer it if you want.

2) OK, that's fair. The Johnny Cochran reference might have been completely random.

But speaking of trying to "sugar-coat" the record of an innocent 17 year old, were you aware that Zimmerman has been:

- accused of domestic violence by a former girlfriend

- arrested for assaulting a police officer

- accused by a female cousin of nearly two decades of sexually assault and molestation

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

BTW, Zimmerman could have avoided trial altogether if he had opted to assert the "stand your ground" defense in a pre-trial immunity hearing. He opted not to.

Any idea why? Did he have a lawyer at the time.

[TexasTiger 13,021]

BTW, Zimmerman could have avoided trial altogether if he had opted to assert the "stand your ground" defense in a pre-trial immunity hearing. He opted not to.

Any idea why? Did he have a lawyer at the time.

Yes, he had a lawyer. In a stand your ground hearing you testify. He apparently concluded he preferred taking his chances with a trial.

[homersapien 11,449]

BTW, Zimmerman could have avoided trial altogether if he had opted to assert the "stand your ground" defense in a pre-trial immunity hearing. He opted not to.

Any idea why? Did he have a lawyer at the time.

Yes, he had a lawyer. In a stand your ground hearing you testify. He apparently concluded he preferred taking his chances with a trial.

I must admit I didn't know that. I thought "stand your ground" was an inherent part of this trial. I guess that explains why it never came up.

While I disagree with the "stand your ground" law, the legal requirement to testify does mitigate it a little.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

If it was based on his legal team's advice then I'm surprised he didn't just say guilty and go straight to jail. It's a lucky outcome that his defense team just happened to be not as awful as the prosecutor.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

BTW, Zimmerman could have avoided trial altogether if he had opted to assert the "stand your ground" defense in a pre-trial immunity hearing. He opted not to.

Any idea why? Did he have a lawyer at the time.

Yes, he had a lawyer. In a stand your ground hearing you testify. He apparently concluded he preferred taking his chances with a trial.

I must admit I didn't know that. I thought "stand your ground" was an inherent part of this trial. I guess that explains why it never came up.

While I disagree with the "stand your ground" law, the legal requirement to testify does mitigate it a little.

Surely the end is near. homer admits to not knowing something (sorry my friend I couldn't resist).

[cptau 169]

BTW, Zimmerman could have avoided trial altogether if he had opted to assert the "stand your ground" defense in a pre-trial immunity hearing. He opted not to.

Any idea why? Did he have a lawyer at the time.

Yes, he had a lawyer. In a stand your ground hearing you testify. He apparently concluded he preferred taking his chances with a trial.

I must admit I didn't know that. I thought "stand your ground" was an inherent part of this trial. I guess that explains why it never came up.

While I disagree with the "stand your ground" law, the legal requirement to testify does mitigate it a little.

The press was fixated on the Florida stand-your-ground law and the difference between it and the castle doctrine. They talked about it for weeks last year.

It never came up in the trial, the defense only referenced self defense.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

For any rational people on this thread, here is an attorney from Wisconsin making the same point I was trying to make. Apparently, the burden in asserting an affirmative defense varies between jurisdictions. The standard he states is in Wisconsin makes sense to me. If you are claiming you were justified in killing someone, you at least have to prove it was more likely than not that you had a reasonable fear of death or imminent severe injury.

I’m a criminal defense lawyer in Wisconsin, but I’ll tell you my reaction to the Zimmerman verdict today. I’ve had friends in Florida asking for my take. I haven’t watched the trial very closely (it seems like an ordinary criminal case to me in many respects). But I was astounded that the defense would put on a “self-defense” argument without the defendant testifying. In most civilized jurisdictions, the burden is on the defense to prove, at least more likely than not, that the law breaking was done for reasons of self-defense. I couldn’t figure out how they could do this without the defendant’s testimony.

I got curious and read the jury instructions Friday night and, I was wrong. In Florida, if self-defense is even suggested, it’s the states obligation to prove it’s absence beyond a reasonable doubt(!). That’s crazy. But ‘not guilty’ was certainly a reasonable result in this case. As I told in friend in Tampa today though, if you’re ever in a heated argument with anyone, and you’re pretty sure there aren’t any witnesses, it’s always best to kill the other person.

They can’t testify, you don’t have to testify, no one else has any idea what happened; how can the state ever prove beyond a doubt is wasn’t self-defense? Holy crap! What kind of system is that?

http://editors.talki...w.php?ref=fpblg

His post speaks volumes. People are not going to like it but there is another case coming up in Sept. in Jacksonville, FL that's much like TM's case (Jordan Davis). Mike Dunn can thank GZ for a free get out of jail card. If you ever wanted to kill someone and get away with it. the state of FL seems like the place to do it.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

BTW, Zimmerman could have avoided trial altogether if he had opted to assert the "stand your ground" defense in a pre-trial immunity hearing. He opted not to.

Any idea why? Did he have a lawyer at the time.

Yes, he had a lawyer. In a stand your ground hearing you testify. He apparently concluded he preferred taking his chances with a trial.

I must admit I didn't know that. I thought "stand your ground" was an inherent part of this trial. I guess that explains why it never came up.

While I disagree with the "stand your ground" law, the legal requirement to testify does mitigate it a little.

"Stand your ground" law was included in the jury documents. It didn't comeu up in the trial but it was in the list of charges and reason to find GZ guilty or not guilty. http://www.scribd.co...ry-Instructions

[homersapien 11,449]

BTW, Zimmerman could have avoided trial altogether if he had opted to assert the "stand your ground" defense in a pre-trial immunity hearing. He opted not to.

Any idea why? Did he have a lawyer at the time.

Yes, he had a lawyer. In a stand your ground hearing you testify. He apparently concluded he preferred taking his chances with a trial.

I must admit I didn't know that. I thought "stand your ground" was an inherent part of this trial. I guess that explains why it never came up.

While I disagree with the "stand your ground" law, the legal requirement to testify does mitigate it a little.

Surely the end is near. homer admits to not knowing something (sorry my friend I couldn't resist).

Well, it's very possible - maybe even likely - that I did know it and just forgot it.

That seems to happen more and more.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

"Stand your ground" law was included in the jury documents. It didn't comeu up in the trial but it was in the list of charges and reason to find GZ guilty or not guilty. http://www.scribd.co...ry-Instructions

[homersapien 11,449]

For any rational people on this thread, here is an attorney from Wisconsin making the same point I was trying to make. Apparently, the burden in asserting an affirmative defense varies between jurisdictions. The standard he states is in Wisconsin makes sense to me. If you are claiming you were justified in killing someone, you at least have to prove it was more likely than not that you had a reasonable fear of death or imminent severe injury.

I’m a criminal defense lawyer in Wisconsin, but I’ll tell you my reaction to the Zimmerman verdict today. I’ve had friends in Florida asking for my take. I haven’t watched the trial very closely (it seems like an ordinary criminal case to me in many respects). But I was astounded that the defense would put on a “self-defense” argument without the defendant testifying. In most civilized jurisdictions, the burden is on the defense to prove, at least more likely than not, that the law breaking was done for reasons of self-defense. I couldn’t figure out how they could do this without the defendant’s testimony.

I got curious and read the jury instructions Friday night and, I was wrong. In Florida, if self-defense is even suggested, it’s the states obligation to prove it’s absence beyond a reasonable doubt(!). That’s crazy. But ‘not guilty’ was certainly a reasonable result in this case. As I told in friend in Tampa today though, if you’re ever in a heated argument with anyone, and you’re pretty sure there aren’t any witnesses, it’s always best to kill the other person.

They can’t testify, you don’t have to testify, no one else has any idea what happened; how can the state ever prove beyond a doubt is wasn’t self-defense? Holy crap! What kind of system is that?

http://editors.talki...w.php?ref=fpblg

His post speaks volumes. People are not going to like it but there is another case coming up in Sept. in Jacksonville, FL that's much like TM's case (Jordan Davis). Mike Dunn can thank GZ for a free get out of jail card. If you ever wanted to kill someone and get away with it. the state of FL seems like the place to do it.

I agree completely.

And not to change the subject, but it sounded like the jury focused on the murder charge for most of their deliberations. Personally, I think the prosecution should maybe have gone only with manslaughter, at least based on the case they presented.

I wonder if that would have made the difference in the outcome.

[homersapien 11,449]

"Stand your ground" law was included in the jury documents. It didn't comeu up in the trial but it was in the list of charges and reason to find GZ guilty or not guilty. http://www.scribd.co...ry-Instructions

So bottom line, Florida doesn't require the defendant to testify with a plea of self-defense. That does seem to be a flaw in the system. I agree with the Wisconsin lawyer on this. I wonder how many other states are like Florida?

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

"Stand your ground" law was included in the jury documents. It didn't comeu up in the trial but it was in the list of charges and reason to find GZ guilty or not guilty. http://www.scribd.co...ry-Instructions

So bottom line, Florida doesn't require the defendant to testify with a plea of self-defense. That does seem to be a flaw in the system. I agree with the Wisconsin lawyer on this. I wonder how many other states are like Florida?

There is certainly a flaw in FL. Not sure if you've heard of Marrisa Alexander; a black woman who fired a warning shot into the wall (a warning shot) at her abuser husband. No one was hurt or got shot. She just got 20 years in prison on Friday. She claimed the same thing as GZ but was found guilty. Never been in trouble before and she had filed a restraining order against her husband. Same state of FL but yet GZ is home and she is doing 20 years. I'd say there's certainly a flaw. I guess like some blamed TM for not running away they'll probably blame her for not doing something too. http://www.huffingto..._n_1530035.html Plus, Angela Corey is handled this case too.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

"Stand your ground" law was included in the jury documents. It didn't comeu up in the trial but it was in the list of charges and reason to find GZ guilty or not guilty. http://www.scribd.co...ry-Instructions

So bottom line, Florida doesn't require the defendant to testify with a plea of self-defense. That does seem to be a flaw in the system. I agree with the Wisconsin lawyer on this. I wonder how many other states are like Florida?

Here is an article on Alabama's. http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/07/alabamas_stand_your_ground_law.html#incart_river

[tiger88 934]

For any rational people on this thread, here is an attorney from Wisconsin making the same point I was trying to make. Apparently, the burden in asserting an affirmative defense varies between jurisdictions. The standard he states is in Wisconsin makes sense to me. If you are claiming you were justified in killing someone, you at least have to prove it was more likely than not that you had a reasonable fear of death or imminent severe injury.

I’m a criminal defense lawyer in Wisconsin, but I’ll tell you my reaction to the Zimmerman verdict today. I’ve had friends in Florida asking for my take. I haven’t watched the trial very closely (it seems like an ordinary criminal case to me in many respects). But I was astounded that the defense would put on a “self-defense” argument without the defendant testifying. In most civilized jurisdictions, the burden is on the defense to prove, at least more likely than not, that the law breaking was done for reasons of self-defense. I couldn’t figure out how they could do this without the defendant’s testimony.

I got curious and read the jury instructions Friday night and, I was wrong. In Florida, if self-defense is even suggested, it’s the states obligation to prove it’s absence beyond a reasonable doubt(!). That’s crazy. But ‘not guilty’ was certainly a reasonable result in this case. As I told in friend in Tampa today though, if you’re ever in a heated argument with anyone, and you’re pretty sure there aren’t any witnesses, it’s always best to kill the other person. They can’t testify, you don’t have to testify, no one else has any idea what happened; how can the state ever prove beyond a doubt is wasn’t self-defense? Holy crap! What kind of system is that?

http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/07/how_much_is_about_florida_law.php?ref=fpblg

Your idea sounded crazy to me tex. I'll admit that if one state does things the way you proposed that your idea isn't half baked like I thought it was and apologize for my behavior.

Not sure what to think about this link though. You cut off the very bottom of the article where it links to another article by a guy named Vogel who says Florida's law is like 49 other states and unless I misread that too it says the burden is on the state to prove it wasn't self defense and not the defendant's to prove it was.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

For any rational people on this thread, here is an attorney from Wisconsin making the same point I was trying to make. Apparently, the burden in asserting an affirmative defense varies between jurisdictions. The standard he states is in Wisconsin makes sense to me. If you are claiming you were justified in killing someone, you at least have to prove it was more likely than not that you had a reasonable fear of death or imminent severe injury.

I’m a criminal defense lawyer in Wisconsin, but I’ll tell you my reaction to the Zimmerman verdict today. I’ve had friends in Florida asking for my take. I haven’t watched the trial very closely (it seems like an ordinary criminal case to me in many respects). But I was astounded that the defense would put on a “self-defense” argument without the defendant testifying. In most civilized jurisdictions, the burden is on the defense to prove, at least more likely than not, that the law breaking was done for reasons of self-defense. I couldn’t figure out how they could do this without the defendant’s testimony.

I got curious and read the jury instructions Friday night and, I was wrong. In Florida, if self-defense is even suggested, it’s the states obligation to prove it’s absence beyond a reasonable doubt(!). That’s crazy. But ‘not guilty’ was certainly a reasonable result in this case. As I told in friend in Tampa today though, if you’re ever in a heated argument with anyone, and you’re pretty sure there aren’t any witnesses, it’s always best to kill the other person.

They can’t testify, you don’t have to testify, no one else has any idea what happened; how can the state ever prove beyond a doubt is wasn’t self-defense? Holy crap! What kind of system is that?

http://editors.talki...w.php?ref=fpblg

His post speaks volumes. People are not going to like it but there is another case coming up in Sept. in Jacksonville, FL that's much like TM's case (Jordan Davis). Mike Dunn can thank GZ for a free get out of jail card. If you ever wanted to kill someone and get away with it. the state of FL seems like the place to do it.

I agree completely.

And not to change the subject, but it sounded like the jury focused on the murder charge for most of their deliberations. Personally, I think the prosecution should maybe have gone only with manslaughter, at least based on the case they presented.

I wonder if that would have made the difference in the outcome.

It may have helped b/c the jury came to the judge to asked a question about manslaughter. Neither side focused on manslaughter nor did the prosecution bring forth that charge from the start which may have helped. The prosecution could've done better but did the best they could IMO. I do think they over charged but this case was messed up from the beginning due to bad investigation and bad evidence collection; that clearly came out in trial. A lot of political and outside pressure forced them to look further into situation but it all was half assed after the fact. If things were done right from the start than who knows but with the laws FL has in place it probably would've been the same outcome.

[TexasTiger 13,021]

For any rational people on this thread, here is an attorney from Wisconsin making the same point I was trying to make. Apparently, the burden in asserting an affirmative defense varies between jurisdictions. The standard he states is in Wisconsin makes sense to me. If you are claiming you were justified in killing someone, you at least have to prove it was more likely than not that you had a reasonable fear of death or imminent severe injury.

I'm a criminal defense lawyer in Wisconsin, but I'll tell you my reaction to the Zimmerman verdict today. I've had friends in Florida asking for my take. I haven't watched the trial very closely (it seems like an ordinary criminal case to me in many respects). But I was astounded that the defense would put on a "self-defense" argument without the defendant testifying. In most civilized jurisdictions, the burden is on the defense to prove, at least more likely than not, that the law breaking was done for reasons of self-defense. I couldn't figure out how they could do this without the defendant's testimony.

I got curious and read the jury instructions Friday night and, I was wrong. In Florida, if self-defense is even suggested, it's the states obligation to prove it's absence beyond a reasonable doubt(!). That's crazy. But 'not guilty' was certainly a reasonable result in this case. As I told in friend in Tampa today though, if you're ever in a heated argument with anyone, and you're pretty sure there aren't any witnesses, it's always best to kill the other person. They can't testify, you don't have to testify, no one else has any idea what happened; how can the state ever prove beyond a doubt is wasn't self-defense? Holy crap! What kind of system is that?

http://editors.talki...w.php?ref=fpblg

Your idea sounded crazy to me tex. I'll admit that if one state does things the way you proposed that your idea isn't half baked like I thought it was and apologize for my behavior.

Not sure what to think about this link though. You cut off the very bottom of the article where it links to another article by a guy named Vogel who says Florida's law is like 49 other states and unless I misread that too it says the burden is on the state to prove it wasn't self defense and not the defendant's to prove it was.

At the time I posted I didn't know the state of the law in other states-- just wondered about the near impossibility of proving someone didn't engage in self defense beyond a reasonable doubt when there are no other witnesses. The link you reference claims all states but Ohio are like Florida (to the best of his knowledge). Volokh states:

This wasn’t always the rule. The English common law rule at the time of the Framing was that the defense must prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence, and Ohio still follows that rule; the Supreme Court has held (Martin v. Ohio (1987)) that placing this burden on the accused is constitutional. But to my knowledge, only Ohio still takes the view — all the other states do not.

Of course this doesn’t dispose of what the rule ought to be.

It would seem odd that most states have gotten that far from the English common law, developed over centuries, on which most of our law is based. If they have, it seems they may have gone a bit far. For most affirmative defenses, the burden shifts, at least to some degree. That said, I haven't thoroughly researched the issue.

[tiger88 934]

and Trayvon was a saint

well, he didn't kill anyone. Just bought some Skittles-- that bothers you somehow?

You are killing me with the "innocent skittle buyer" routine. Team you up with Homer's "he exited the car, he must live behind bars", Johnny Cochran style tag line, and the two of you are a Prosecution Dream Team!

Then die and go away already.

Are you seriously trying to argue that Trayvon's character or history is justification for shooting him?

And your last sentence infers a racial component to your thinking, which I suppose is at least consistent with the premise that Trayvon's past should be a consideration. Zimmerman was clearly "profiling" him.

Your thoughts here are ludicrous, and your conclusions afa my thoughts are way off.

Saying that I am indicating Trayvon's past is grounds for shooting him is ridiculous on your part.

Actually, it was not a statement. It was a question. That means you get to answer it. So try to at least observe the basics of debate. I am not really interesting in exchanging insults, (at least witless ones).

My point is that it took two to tango that night. I don't believe that GZ had the intent to track and kill him. I believe that TM did some things that brought about his own demise that he EASILY could have avoided. To continuously refer to him as some kind of innocent little Skittle Buyer is beyond amusing and weakens someones argument that they think they are strengthening.

Afa as you playing the race card on my last sentence, that is unfounded. The only possible reason to do that is I mentioned Johnny Cochran and the mention had nothing to do with his race. I'm not sure why you would think it did.

Because I think that a lot of people supporting Zimmerman's case exhibit latent or subliminal racism. The reference to Cochran may or may not have been such a reference, but it struck me as that way. It's not as blatant as AU Raptor (for example) but it is what it is.

Now, having said that, I will be the first to say that we all, including me, have a little racism in our "makeup". But when people start flashing it, I don't have a problem with acknowledging it. You can call it playing the "race card" if you want. I am just pointing out what seems obvious to me.

1) Your question could easily be interpreted as rhetorical, which I did.

2) You are overplaying the race card.

1) Please assume that a question means a question as a default. You can still answer it if you want.

2) OK, that's fair. The Johnny Cochran reference might have been completely random.

But speaking of trying to "sugar-coat" the record of an innocent 17 year old, were you aware that Zimmerman has been:

- accused of domestic violence by a former girlfriend

- arrested for assaulting a police officer

- accused by a female cousin of nearly two decades of sexually assault and molestation

Seems like I read that somewhere here, not sure. Was he convicted of anything?

If you don't imply the answer in your questions you'll get better results afa them being answered and not considered accusations.

[homersapien 11,449]

"Stand your ground" law was included in the jury documents. It didn't comeu up in the trial but it was in the list of charges and reason to find GZ guilty or not guilty. http://www.scribd.co...ry-Instructions

So bottom line, Florida doesn't require the defendant to testify with a plea of self-defense. That does seem to be a flaw in the system. I agree with the Wisconsin lawyer on this. I wonder how many other states are like Florida?

There is certainly a flaw in FL. Not sure if you've heard of Marrisa Alexander; a black woman who fired a warning shot into the wall (a warning shot) at her abuser husband. No one was hurt or got shot. She just got 20 years in prison on Friday. She claimed the same thing as GZ but was found guilty. Never been in trouble before and she had filed a restraining order against her husband. Same state of FL but yet GZ is home and she is doing 20 years. I'd say there's certainly a flaw. I guess like some blamed TM for not running away they'll probably blame her for not doing something too. http://www.huffingto..._n_1530035.html Plus, Angela Corey is handled this case too.

And people can't understand why there was a public reaction to Zimmerman not even being charged. :-\

[homersapien 11,449]

"Stand your ground" law was included in the jury documents. It didn't comeu up in the trial but it was in the list of charges and reason to find GZ guilty or not guilty. http://www.scribd.co...ry-Instructions

So bottom line, Florida doesn't require the defendant to testify with a plea of self-defense. That does seem to be a flaw in the system. I agree with the Wisconsin lawyer on this. I wonder how many other states are like Florida?

Here is an article on Alabama's. http://blog.al.com/w...ml#incart_river

I think these laws are insane. They do nothing absolutely nothing to promote self defense. If anything, the older law is clearly more effective in promoting self defense, as well as preventing possibly avoidable violence.

Where did these laws originate anyway? Who proposed them and who's backing them? If, as I assume, they are "gun" interests. they are "shooting themselves in the foot" so to speak.

And I say that as a gun owner who is not reluctant to carry (at least in my car) on a regular basis. I live on a mountain with a narrow gravel driveway 0.3+ miles long and only one way out. I don't care for the idea of arriving home, particularly at night, without some personal "insurance". (My Pit Bulls are a joke. They would let a burglar in the house and ride off with him if he was nice. :-\ )

I took the CWP course in SC a few years back, and I thought the "obligation to retreat" was a perfectly sensible law.