The Quote That Should End the Trayvon Trial

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Yes only a sicko gun nut would think they could be attacked at a public place like a target. paranoid nut jobs.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/26/suspect-named-in-western-pa-target-store-stabbings-16-year-old-victim-in/

Homeless man used teenage girl as shield in Target stabbing attack, police say

Man Who Attacked Citizens in an East Liberty Target Store Charged with Attempted Homicide - See more at: http://senecascout.svsd.net/news/2013/04/02/man-who-attacked-citizens-in-an-east-liberty-target-store-charged-with-attempted-homicide/#sthash.zvednYdA.dpuf

Cleveland woman says she was attacked at West 117th Street Target store parking lot

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/cleveland_metro/cleveland-woman-says-she-was-attacked-in-west-117th-street-target-store-parking-lot

Man charged with attacking police officer at Bel Air Target

Read more: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/harford/belair/ph-ag-police-assault-0621-20130620,0,4391812.story#ixzz2XqgbC6Pq

I know, right? Welcome to America, where you should carry a gun to go buy paper towels.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Clearly, it's a miracle that my unarmed self is still alive after all my trips to Target. Praise the Lord!

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Freedom does not equal gun possession. GZ is a thug.

And maybe TM was too?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Clearly, it's a miracle that my unarmed self is still alive after all my trips to Target. Praise the Lord!

I was just painting the eaves and I forgot my gun. I should have known better.

[Jacque67 7,328]

And maybe TM was too?

But GZ isn't a dead thug (yet)

[spookyturtle 9,466]

But GZ isn't a dead thug (yet)

Typical CABA attitude.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

In case anyone didn't notice...the quote did not end the trial and GZ is one day closer to acquittal.

I am pro choice and definitely believe you should not be required to carry a concealed weapon.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

And maybe TM was too?

What kind of evidence would you, as a juror need to put reasonable doubt in your mind that Zimmerman's use of lethal force on Martin was not necessary?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

What kind of evidence would you, as a juror need to put reasonable doubt in your mind that Zimmerman's use of lethal force on Martin was not necessary?

None that has been presented so far.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

None that has been presented so far.

I was asking spooky, who says he's neutral.

[lostinblue 1,989]

What kind of evidence would you, as a juror need to put reasonable doubt in your mind that Zimmerman's use of lethal force on Martin was not necessary?

From yesterdays trial... The witness for the state.......

MOM: "Evidence you had all fit into self-defense theory, right?" Serino : yes

[spookyturtle 9,466]

What kind of evidence would you, as a juror need to put reasonable doubt in your mind that Zimmerman's use of lethal force on Martin was not necessary?

I still need to hear the medical examiners report, ballistics, explanation for the discrepancy of the body location. Perhaps GZ was looking for TM and doesn't want to admit it, hence the body location. Why did TM hang around to have an encounter with GZ? That we'll never know. I think a "normal" kid would be scared with an adult following him and would have run home ASAP, but that's me. Maybe the meeting was accidental, maybe they just crossed paths.

I don't buy the idea that GZ was a racist vigilante looking for someone to shoot. He called the police. He used the word "punks", that is not a term that immediately screams black. In fact, for me, it makes me think of any smart a$$ young know it all troublemaker. I'm not seeing race being an issue here. If he really was the tough talking macho man gun owner like we have here at VJ, he would have put enough holes in TM to make him look like a slice of Swiss cheese. GZ shot him once. And claims he didn't die instantly. He claims to have held his arms down to keep him from getting up until the cops arrived.

I believe a witness said they saw TM on top of GZ. If so, this supports GZ's story. Now we come down to reasonable use of force. I'm a pansy and might get scared and be fearful of bodily harm if someone sits on me and punches me a few times. A tough guy like Bill might be able to take 10-20 hard blows to the face and head and not even have an elevated pulse. The fear of bodily harm is different for each of us. If I see a guy bleeding with wounds that match his description of the incident, a witness that supports the story and IF the medical examiner and ballistics expert support this, I don't know how much doubt I would have.

Does the bullet entry angle jive with GZ's story? That will probably be important. How did George get his wounds if it wasn't TM?

Thus far, I don't see anything conclusive that GZ did not act out of fear of bodily injury. I don't think that either of them are choir boys, but GZ following TM is not against the law. And TM confronting him isn't against the law. I think this incident was easily preventable by both parties involved. TM was not passive during this incident. According to GZ's initial call to the police, TM walked right up to GZ's car so that GZ got a good look at him to know he was a teenager. No reason to doubt this at all. So why would a scared sissy kid do that? I'm a pansy, I run home and tell some scary white guy is following me. TM had ample time to run home too, but he chose not to. Why?

The trial isn't over. Time will show what unfolds.

[Dan and Judy 614]

What kind of evidence would you, as a juror need to put reasonable doubt in your mind that Zimmerman's use of lethal force on Martin was not necessary?

You are trying to use the wrong standard.

If he had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was self defense He would certainly be convicted, without any good eyewitnesses

it is reasonable to doubt.

The standard is a preponderance of evidence.

So if the jury thinks it more likely that he was acting in self defense, he walks

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You are trying to use the wrong standard.

If he had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was self defense He would certainly be convicted, without any good eyewitnesses

it is reasonable to doubt.

The standard is a preponderance of evidence.

So if the jury thinks it more likely that he was acting in self defense, he walks

That is correct.

[himher 634]

You are trying to use the wrong standard.

If he had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was self defense He would certainly be convicted, without any good eyewitnesses

it is reasonable to doubt.

The standard is a preponderance of evidence.

So if the jury thinks it more likely that he was acting in self defense, he walks

The standard is not a "preponderance of evidence".

NOTE: GZ lives in the 5th district jurisdiction

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

But, with these additional facts, did he 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.

Last year the Fifth District Court of Appeal quoted this language from Murray and followed the same rule in the case of Montijo v. State, 61 So.3d 424 (Fla. 5th Dist, 2011). In Montijo the trial judge had instructed the jury that the defendant had the burden of proving that he acted in self-defense "beyond a reasonable doubt." Montijo's attorney did not object to the jury instruction, but the appellate court found that the trial judge had committed a "fundamental error" by giving that instruction and ordered a new trial for the defendant. The Fifth District Court of Appeal stated:

The inclusion of the phrase beyond a reasonable doubt in the jury instruction placed the burden upon Montijo to prove self-defense, depriving him of a fair trial and rising to the level of fundamental error. Accordingly, we reverse.

Standard Jury Instructions in Florida regarding self-defense cases

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/instructions.shtml#

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.

Edited July 6, 2013 by himher