Trayvon Martin

[Soxbadger]

The burden of proving self defense, which would seem to be an affirmative defense, should have then been on Zimmerman's lawyers, as I always understood it.

 

To the best of my understanding this is not how it works. I believe the burden is on the prosecution.

[iamshack]

To the best of my understanding this is not how it works. I believe the burden is on the prosecution.

I guess that might be the case with murder, but at least with manslaughter, it seems like the burden would be on Zimmerman.

 

But what do I know...this is why I decided not to practice

[Jenksismyhero]

Yeah, I agree...but that is where it does not make a whole lot of sense. I don't know why the prosecution should have to prove it wasn't self defense. They proved that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. The burden of proving self defense, which would seem to be an affirmative defense, should have then been on Zimmerman's lawyers, as I always understood it.

 

I think SS posted an article that every state but Ohio places the burden on the prosecution. I'd imagine it has to do with the fact that the state has to prove you did something wrong. And killing someone in self defense is not wrong. Though I get what you're saying and agree it's weird. I guess if we did it the other way you might as well force the defense to prove you didn't kill someone with intent/premeditation too, but we don't do that either.

[Soxbadger]

I guess that might be the case with murder, but at least with manslaughter, it seems like the burden would be on Zimmerman.

 

But what do I know...this is why I decided not to practice

 

Burden does not shift. The reason being what burden would be on the defendant? Beyond reasonable doubt standard is supposed to protect defendant, so if that was self defense standard youd basically be convicting almost every person who raised self defense.

 

It may make more sense to relax the burden on the prosecution (does it really make sense that its beyond reasonable doubt), but that would turn into some rather complex jury instructions.

 

Ultimately the law is created so that in a situation like this the defendant should walk more times than they are convicted. Which is why its more important to discuss what actions got here and how can they be prevented in the future.

 

Whether that is by changing the law or just using common sense, who knows. I think common sense would go along way.

[Jenksismyhero]

We really need to stop comparing it to OJ because they are very very different. In the OJ case the prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ killed 2 people. The jury found that the prosecution did not reach its burden. In the civil trial, the plaintiff had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that OJ killed them. The criminal trial and jury trial have nothing to do with each other.

 

The criminal case never found OJ innocent, no criminal case ever finds someone innocent, unless the person is relying on an affirmative defense, like Martin. This is why comparing to OJ is very misleading because there was an affirmative defense.

 

Now lets look at Martin. In Martin we have a law:

 

 

 

Now maybe there is an argument that some how in a civil case they should apply different burdens, but here is the problem, in a civil case the burden on an affirmative defense is on the party making the defense. Thus where in criminal court it was the prosecutions case to prove that it was not self defense, in a civil case it will be Zimmerman's burden to prove that it was.

 

Which is why I believe Florida made the law I quoted, to specifically prevent liability in this situation. Im not going to dig up Florida case law, but what is the point of:

 

 

 

If not to prevent people who use self defense from being sued in civil court?

 

I dont really care either way, I just think that OJ and this case are pretty different.

 

I don't think we're on the same wave length here. All i'm saying is that the verdicts in both cases do not become findings of fact for the purpose of the case. In the civil case with OJ they still had to show under a lesser burden that he killed those people before they could win. OJ couldn't prevent the suit based on his NG verdict.

 

Same with Zimmerman. He can't just say I have this not guilty verdict, they decided I shot in self defense, you can't sue me. He's going to have to defend the self defense angle again in the civil case (unless he wins a SYG hearing).

[Balta1701]

(unless he wins a SYG hearing).

He doesn't need to have that. Not only has he already been found not guilty, but the judge included the SYG standard in the instructions to the jury.

[Soxbadger]

I don't think we're on the same wave length here. All i'm saying is that the verdicts in both cases do not become findings of fact for the purpose of the case. In the civil case with OJ they still had to show under a lesser burden that he killed those people before they could win. OJ couldn't prevent the suit based on his NG verdict.

 

Same with Zimmerman. He can't just say I have this not guilty verdict, they decided I shot in self defense, you can't sue me. He's going to have to defend the self defense angle again in the civil case (unless he wins a SYG hearing).

 

Im not a fortune teller but the difference is going to be that Zimmermans attorney will file a motion to dismiss based on the law I quoted above stating that the law provides Zimmerman immunity to civil actions because he was found not guilty.

 

The Plaintiff will reply arguing that its a different standard yadda yadda yadda

 

The judge will then rule.

 

None of this could possibly happen in the OJ case, you seem to keep glossing over the fact that Zimmerman's was an affirmative defense where as OJ's was merely a "I didnt do it."

 

The OJ trial never determined whether OJ did or did not do it, where as the Zimmerman trial (at least on its appearance) did determine that Zimmerman acted lawfully in self defense.

 

Now is there some sort of very fine argument to made that with a different standard maybe Zimmerman did not use self defense?

 

Sure, perhaps. But the cases are going to involve very different legal arguments, which is why OJ is not very analogous.

[iamshack]

Burden does not shift. The reason being what burden would be on the defendant? Beyond reasonable doubt standard is supposed to protect defendant, so if that was self defense standard youd basically be convicting almost every person who raised self defense.

 

It may make more sense to relax the burden on the prosecution (does it really make sense that its beyond reasonable doubt), but that would turn into some rather complex jury instructions.

 

Ultimately the law is created so that in a situation like this the defendant should walk more times than they are convicted. Which is why its more important to discuss what actions got here and how can they be prevented in the future.

 

Whether that is by changing the law or just using common sense, who knows. I think common sense would go along way.

Ahh, you are correct...self defense is usually an affirmative defense, but if it is raised, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the claim of self defense is not justified.

 

The more and more I think about this, the less I think about the job the Prosecution did.

 

They should have at least come at this from the angle that Zimmerman's actions prior to the altercation were not lawful.

[Balta1701]

Ahh, you are correct...self defense is usually an affirmative defense, but if it is raised, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the claim of self defense is not justified.

 

The more and more I think about this, the less I think about the job the Prosecution did.

 

They should have at least come at this from the angle that Zimmerman's actions prior to the altercation were not lawful.

I don't think they could have proven that beyond a reasonable doubt either.

 

Barring something like video of the shooting being found, this was a very difficult case to make.

[Soxbadger]

Its not really the prosecutions fault. There were no smoke and mirrors to be played here. You have crappy laws and crappy facts. When in doubt its supposed to go to the defendant.

 

I dont think a single person can honestly say with 100% certainty that at that split second Zimmerman did not legitimately think he was going to be killed.

 

Which is ultimately why govts like to have other laws to make it easier to stick someone for this. IE If it wasnt legal for Zimmerman to walk around the street with a gun, then perhaps you charge him with felony murder and you get a conviction.

 

But without that, not much to try and pin on Zimmerman.

[iamshack]

I don't think they could have proven that beyond a reasonable doubt either.

 

Barring something like video of the shooting being found, this was a very difficult case to make.

Yeah, but at least then they could say "If we prove that Zimmerman was not in a place he was lawfully allowed to be, it cannot be self defense."

 

Under their theory, there really wasn't any way they could possibly win.

[Balta1701]

Yeah, but at least then they could say "If we prove that Zimmerman was not in a place he was lawfully allowed to be, it cannot be self defense."

 

Under their theory, there really wasn't any way they could possibly win.

But he was lawfully allowed to be where he was. Both of them were. It's possible that his actions leading up to the shooting could have crossed the line to unlawful, but he had every right to be where he was while carrying a gun.

[iamshack]

But he was lawfully allowed to be where he was. Both of them were. It's possible that his actions leading up to the shooting could have crossed the line to unlawful, but he had every right to be where he was while carrying a gun.

Ahh, I guess you are right. I was thinking if you could say he was "stalking" Martin he wouldn't be allowed to be there lawfully, but that doesn't really work either.

 

It was just a s***ty case.

[Soxbadger]

http://gma.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-gun-...topstories.html

 

Im pretty sure the bravado is starting to get to them, insinuating you are going to hold people responsible?

 

Id take my victory and gtfo of town.

[Jenksismyhero]

http://gma.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-gun-...topstories.html

 

Im pretty sure the bravado is starting to get to them, insinuating you are going to hold people responsible?

 

Id take my victory and gtfo of town.

 

He's got some suits against the media i'd imagine. But yeah, I'd get out of town as fast as possible and hope you can find a job one day.

[Balta1701]

He's got some suits against the media i'd imagine. But yeah, I'd get out of town as fast as possible and hope you can find a job one day.

He'll be able to earn a lot more doing lectures and media appearances now, just go from gun show to nra convention, he's a celebrity. The civil suit will take a chunk but he's already raised hundreds of thousands of dollars as it is without any earning ability.

[Soxbadger]

I never thought about this before, but if you use self defense, should the state then be allowed to call you to testify even though your 5th amendment right says otherwise?

 

http://gma.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-pros...ories.html?vp=1

 

Basically the 5th amendment is to protect a defendant from incriminating themselves. But isnt an "affirmative defense" the equivalent of speech?

 

The defendant basically gets to say something and the prosecution has no ability to cross examine what they said.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Soxbadger

[mr_genius]

http://gma.yahoo.com/george-zimmerman-gun-...topstories.html

 

Im pretty sure the bravado is starting to get to them, insinuating you are going to hold people responsible?

 

He has to sue NBC.

[lostfan]

George Zimmerman being worried about vigilantes is like Derrick Rose questioning why it's taking someone so long to come back from an injury.

[iamshack]

George Zimmerman being worried about vigilantes is like Derrick Rose questioning why it's taking someone so long to come back from an injury.

[Y2HH]

George Zimmerman being worried about vigilantes is like Derrick Rose questioning why it's taking someone so long to come back from an injury.

 

[mr_genius]

George Zimmerman being worried about vigilantes is like Derrick Rose questioning why it's taking someone so long to come back from an injury.

 

haha. good one.

 

[southsider2k5]

George Zimmerman being worried about vigilantes is like Derrick Rose questioning why it's taking someone so long to come back from an injury.

 

There is another back before Rose joke in there too.

[pettie4sox]

That sounds incredibly racist. And honestly, it seems like you're making it about race.

 

Come on milkman... instead of understanding lostfan's message you cherrypick on irrelevant details.

[DukeNukeEm]

Which is ultimately why govts like to have other laws to make it easier to stick someone for this. IE If it wasnt legal for Zimmerman to walk around the street with a gun, then perhaps you charge him with felony murder and you get a conviction.

And you could also get a city where 500 people are murdered every year, like that really big one we know which happens to be the only major US city where you cannot walk around the street with a gun. The results really back up your idea, there.

 

I'm seriously stunned that people are stupid enough to get conned into caring about this case anymore. I mean its a convenient platform for a couple big liberal activism points (racism at every corner, guns) but this gets more play than anything else happening in the world right now or over the past week. Doesn't make any sense! Stop caring! Treyvon's dead, he isn't coming back no matter how much #justice he gets and getting all pissy about Zimmerman walking is like getting mad at the White Sox for missing the playoffs this year. You already knew what was going to happen, why get so pissed when the totally expected happens? I dont get it.

 

I will say that the constant stream of race-oriented Us vs. Them bulls*** that's been crammed into our skulls is finally getting to me. I feel myself giving less and less of a s*** about blacks in general as opposed to an earlier time when I really didn't give a s*** about anyone that much and it was pretty uniform across racial lines. This bulls*** is maddening, the idea that because a black was the victim of a crime the pillars of our legal structure that have existed for as long as this country has (double jeopardy) are openly being questioned by a black AG appointed by a black president.

 

I'm getting sick of being OK with this s***, the mountains of welfare money disproportionately spent on blacks who commit more crimes, wind up in jail more often and graduate high school less. Some of you will call me racist just for saying that, but its the goddamn truth and I wouldn't have even gotten to this point if I wasn't bombarded almost daily with anti-white propaganda guised as "progressive tolerance initiatives". But that's kind of what happens when you create an enemy to point at for all your problems, you threaten an imaginary foe into existence.

Edited July 16, 2013 by DukeNukeEm