The Quote That Should End the Trayvon Trial

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Since there is no direct evidence that supports Zimmerman's version of the events that does not also contradict Zimmerman's version of the events, the state need only provide a circumstantial case that is more likely than the circumstantial case provided by the defense. If the defense cannot make a reasonable case at all, Zimmerman goes to prison.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

so far as I can tell right now, the case against Zimmerman is that the state is trying to prove he was never really in lethal danger, he had no reason to think he was in real danger, and didn't need to use lethal force. I don't think they are attempting to prove Zimmerman actually made first contact since they haven't shown any evidence to that, only that he was stalking TM, and once TM attacked him, and then after faking screems of death he caught the attention of a couple neighbors who witnessed what was going on, and using his prior knowledge of self-defense and the "stand your ground rule" he took the opportunity to do what he had planned all along, which was to kill someone.

Its almost like the jury isn't really expected to rule on Zimmerman at all, and that the real trial here is whether there is reasonable doubt that T.M. needed to be killed. That is something I think they have proved, but of course that isn't the trial before us.

GZ was not stalking TM.. following maybe. One is legal one is not.. Hit Google and get back with us.

The state does not have prove if he was in "lethal danger" or not, whatever that is. . They have to prove that GZ would have no reason to think he was.

why do we keep having to repeat the facts

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

GZ was not stalking TM.. following maybe. One is legal one is not.. Hit Google and get back with us.

The state does not have prove if he was in "lethal danger" or not, whatever that is. . They have to prove that GZ would have no reason to think he was.

why do we keep having to repeat the facts

I don't think you would know a fact if it bit you on the backside.

Edited July 7, 2013 by The Patriot

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Exactly. Absent an affirmative defense, Zimmerman is guilty of at least manslaughter, if not murder.

I love your graphic.

Funny that you anti gun fruit loops think the NRA platform should not evolve in over 80 years, but that several leading Democrats were Klan leaders back then or that many leading democrats opposed the civil rights bill in the 60's , is irrelevant.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

several leading Democrats were Klan leaders back then

Probably NRA members these days.

Well, at least the ones that are still dead.

Edited July 7, 2013 by The Patriot

[himher 634]

Exactly. Absent an affirmative defense, Zimmerman is guilty of at least manslaughter, if not murder.

Instructions that an affirmative defense is required is what got the referenced convictions overturned in appeals court. You, dogpile, and the mullet would get this guy off just with your bad interpretations of the law. The law requires that the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was not self-defense.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

... but that several leading Democrats were Klan leaders back then or that many leading democrats opposed the civil rights bill in the 60's , is irrelevant.

They're all Republicans now. Nixon's work. Look it up. It's known as the Southern Strategy.

[himher 634]

You must be one of them. They've never been particularly bright. Can't even do simple things like posting a picture online.

Even the dimmest of lights can tell the difference between a picture and a link

[Ontarkie 14,223]

~~~~One post removed, and 2 more for quoting 2 for the link to the offensive image.~~~~

Edited July 8, 2013 by Ontarkie

[Dan and Judy 614]

Mora has said already, he wants to confine the case to the actual 6-8 minutes, from when Zimmerman first saw Martin until Zimmerman shot him. However, if he limits it to the 40 seconds from when Zimmerman broke contact with the dispatcher until the first police arrived on the scene, there is not enough time for Zimmerman to be sucker punched by Martin at the Tee, then drug two houses down onto the grass where Johnathan Goodman first saw them on the ground, then drug over to the sidewalk, where his head could be pounded into the sidewalk fifty times, MMA style, while someone screams for help 14 times, then during a struggle for the gun Martin is shot back on the grass, Zimmerman extracts himself, carries on a short conversation with a dead person, while searching him for a weapon, then according to another witness, gets up, and walks back and forth from the body of Martin to the Tee at least twice, before another witness shows up, he has a conversation with him, and then the first cop shows up.

You're right that 40 seconds is not enough time for that. It took 4 minutes.

• 7:13:10 — Zimmerman says he does not know where Martin is.

Map of the Retreat at Twin Lakes

• 7:13:41 — Zimmerman's call to Sanford police ends.^[16]

• 7:16:00 - 7:16:59 — Martin's call from the girl goes dead during this minute.^[16][17]

• 7:16:11 — First 911 call from witness about a fight, calls for help heard.^[18]

• 7:16:55 — Gunshot heard on 911 call.^[19]

Following the shooting:

• 7:17 — Officer T. Smith (first there) arrives in squad car at Retreat View.^[20]

• 7:17:40+ — Officer Smith arrives at crime scene.^[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

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

To add, normally the defense can provide a multitude of scenarios, given the evidence in the case. If any of those scenarios can seem more likely than the scenario presented by the prosecution, then the defense wins. However, with an affirmative defense, Zimmerman's team has to stick to one story, and if the state can show any inconsistencies in that story, as they already have, Zimmerman loses.

From reading what many here who lean towards GZ's innocence - it seems they believe that if a person uses their gun to shoot and kill someone, then claim they did it in self-defense, the burden of disproving that is on the state. That to me is bizarre and basically would give people will guns a license to kill. The law should apply extreme scrutiny to any claim of self-defense where someone uses lethal force, in my opinion. And if the evidence is circumstantial as to what happened in the moments leading up to that killing, the burden should rest on the defense, in demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant had no other choice but to use lethal force.

In an affirmative defense, the defendant affirms that the condition is occurring or has occurred but offers a defense that bars, or prevents, the plaintiff's claim. An affirmative defense is known, alternatively, as a justification, or an excuse, defense.^[2] Consequently, affirmative defenses limit or excuse a defendant's criminal culpability or civil liability.^{[citation needed]}

A clear illustration of an affirmative defense is self defense.^[3]In its simplest form, a criminal defendant may be exonerated if he can demonstrate that he had an honest and reasonable belief that another's use of force was unlawful and that the defendant's conduct was necessary to protect himself.^[4]

GZ's assumption about TM was not only incorrect, it was dishonest and unreasonable. TM did nothing that night other than being another black kid wearing a hoodie in the neighborhood where crimes had been committed in the past.

[himher 634]

From reading what many here who lean towards GZ's innocence - it seems they believe that if a person uses their gun to shoot and kill someone, then claim they did it in self-defense, the burden of disproving that is on the state. That to me is bizarre and basically would give people will guns a license to kill. The law should apply extreme scrutiny to any claim of self-defense where someone uses lethal force, in my opinion. And if the evidence is circumstantial as to what happened in the moments leading up to that killing, the burden should rest on the defense, in demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant had no other choice but to use lethal force.

GZ's assumption about TM was not only incorrect, it was dishonest and unreasonable. TM did nothing that night other than being another black kid wearing a hoodie in the neighborhood where crimes had been committed in the past.

You may think it is bizarre but welcome to Texas (or Florida, or Louisiana, or any other state where the people have gotten sick of being victims and have had their legislatures level the playing field). What I or anyone else believes is irrelevent beside what the law in the state defines as self-defense and what the courts in the state have ruled as the requirements for proving self-defense and convicting someone who claims self-defense.

Florida in fact has one of the lowest bars which makes the laws in Florida the subject of many scathing and critical articles and opinions, especially from people in blue states.

GZ's assumption about TM was not only incorrect

GZ assumed he was up to no good and appeared to be on drugs. The victim attacked him and was found with drugs in his system. Sounds like he was "dead on" (pun intended)

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The law requires that the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was not self-defense.

You are saying for every person charged with an unlawful killing, the prosecution has to prove it was not self-defense?

[lostinblue 1,989]

From reading what many here who lean towards GZ's innocence - it seems they believe that if a person uses their gun to shoot and kill someone, then claim they did it in self-defense, the burden of disproving that is on the state. That to me is bizarre and basically would give people will guns a license to kill. The law should apply extreme scrutiny to any claim of self-defense where someone uses lethal force, in my opinion. And if the evidence is circumstantial as to what happened in the moments leading up to that killing, the burden should rest on the defense, in demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant had no other choice but to use lethal force.

GZ's assumption about TM was not only incorrect, it was dishonest and unreasonable. TM did nothing that night other than being another black kid wearing a hoodie in the neighborhood where crimes had been committed in the past.

When would have travon stopped beating George? After he had passed out or after he was dead?

How long would it have been before Georges pistol appeared on the black market?

What travon did wrong was stalk and attack a hispanic who had a gun.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

From reading what many here who lean towards GZ's innocence - it seems they believe that if a person uses their gun to shoot and kill someone, then claim they did it in self-defense, the burden of disproving that is on the state. That to me is bizarre and basically would give people will guns a license to kill. The law should apply extreme scrutiny to any claim of self-defense where someone uses lethal force, in my opinion. And if the evidence is circumstantial as to what happened in the moments leading up to that killing, the burden should rest on the defense, in demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant had no other choice but to use lethal force.

GZ's assumption about TM was not only incorrect, it was dishonest and unreasonable. TM did nothing that night other than being another black kid wearing a hoodie in the neighborhood where crimes had been committed in the past."Edit to fix added by NB"-- committing assault and battery on a person who was carrying a weapon for protection, thus costing him his life.

There it is right now