Zimmerman Trial Live Feed - Day Three

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Gary I am hearing there may be perjury charges against crump.Maybe nothing will come from it, I think it is possible.Something about a tape ABC CBS ??? has ,

Won't you get in trouble for sharing inside information?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I'm not retired yet so I didn't get to watch the live feed all day, but from the comments on the 'star witness' I can't help but believe that the State has much better witnesses to come. Specifically the forensic experts and documented crime scene which appear to blow huge holes in GZ's story.

Sorry but I think hanging your hat on one bad witness is silly.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

To prove second degree murder, a prosecutor must show that the defendant acted according to a "depraved mind" without regard for human life. Florida state laws permit the prosecution of second degree murder when the killing lacked premeditation or planning, but the defendant acted with enmity toward the victim or the two had an ongoing interaction or relationship. Unlike first degree murder, second degree murder does not necessarily require proof of the defendant's intent to kill.

- See more at: http://statelaws.findlaw.com/florida-law/florida-second-degree-murder-laws.html#sthash.XayYTgaE.dpuf

http://statelaws.findlaw.com/florida-law/florida-second-degree-murder-laws.html

That's not that hard to do. But let's say for a moment the state does not meet that burden. That does not mean that Zimmermann walks. Unless Zimmermann can prove that he was in immediate danger for his life or in immediate danger of great bodily harm by reasonable standards, he would still be guilty of the lesser included charge of manslaughter. The burden of proof,that he did not act in self defense, it was claimed, is on the state. It isn't. The burden of proof that he indeed acted in self defense is on the defendant and on the defendant alone.

[Dan and Judy 614]

That's not that hard to do. But let's say for a moment the state does not meet that burden. That does not mean that Zimmermann walks. Unless Zimmermann can prove that he was in immediate danger for his life or in immediate danger of great bodily harm by reasonable standards, he would still be guilty of the lesser included charge of manslaughter.

The victim (Zimmerman) needs to show that it was self defense and the culprit was committing a felony such as assault with a deadly weapon ( a sidewalk for example) to beat the manslaughter charge.

by the way, what does any of this have to do with immigration?

[Penny Lane 8,159]

by the way, what does any of this have to do with immigration?

Nothing. You're in P&R. It's in the "General Discussion" area of the forums. Are you lost?

[Dan and Judy 614]

Nothing. You're in P&R. It's in the "General Discussion" area of the forums. Are you lost?

Not as lost as you

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Nothing. You're in P&R. It's in the "General Discussion" area of the forums. Are you lost?

Did you know the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor and in other news

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Did you know the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor and in other news

And when I went to school they said it was the Japanese. Damn liberal schools lying to the students.

[Dan and Judy 614]

Nothing. You're in P&R. It's in the "General Discussion" area of the forums. Are you lost?

please see post #5

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

When the issue of self-defense is raised, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the defendant did not act in self-defense.

No. There is no presumption of self defense on the part of the defendant.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

When the issue of self-defense is raised, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the defendant did not act in self-defense. Here is the jury instruction: If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty. However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

Nonsense. Here's how this works:

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2012/04/what-is-an-affirmative-defense.html

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

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

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

The burden of proof that he acted in self defense is on the defendant. The burden of proof the state has here is to prove that Zimmermann killed Martin. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Zimmermann did kill Martin. The state has no burden to prove that. In order to make murder 2 stick, the state does have to prove that Zimmermann acted with a depraved mind and without regard for human life. That is the burden on the state to make murder 2 stick. If the state cannot make that stick, then Zimmermann would still be guilty of manslaughter under the law unless Zimmermann can successfully prove that he acted out of self defense having been - by reasonable standards - in immediate fear for his life or in fear of great bodily harm.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog