The Quote That Should End the Trayvon Trial

[himher 634]

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

Yes, in Florida if a jury has resonable doubt that it was self-defense then they are specifically instructed to acquit. I know that this sounds stupid but it sounds stupid because you are from California and appear to not get out much

Edited July 7, 2013 by himher

[dalegg 143]

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

Dude, just so we're clear...I'm not saying that I buy the state's case or think it will actually work. I'm just stating what I think is their case.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The link is still there. I guess one of us isn't so stupid huh

Is it? Really? Or maybe you just overestimated your mental capacity. Again.

[dalegg 143]

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.

I kind of agree with you in part about this. The part that doesn't necassarily sparkle with me is that it's only that Zimmerman has to believe his life is in danger, not that it actually is. As there are many people out there that are just plainly irrational, I would hate to think that my life hangs in the balance of them not knowing what is real danger.

..and I'm not really saying that this necassarily pertains to this case. To me it's still a toss up, ties goes to the defendant, but Marcia Clark in an interview on CNN said something that should be considered.

EVEN if someone attacks you first, out of malice, but then lets up, YOU as the victim are expected to let up, and if the original attacker then feels that YOU have gotten the upper hand and now THEIR life is in danger after they have let up, technically they now have the right to use lethal force for self defense. So what if in that case, their own fear is irrational, and they were the original attacker? By law they are not guilty of manslaugher or murder.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Is it? Really? Or maybe you just overestimated your mental capacity. Again.

C. I have no idea idea how to respond to the overwhelming facts you presented, so I will just call you a nut job **/rwnj with zero reading comprehension insult you and move on, and claim I already answered the question. ( this covers the tin foil hat stupidity)

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Marcia Clark in an interview on CNN said something that should be considered.

She lost her big trial.

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

I kind of agree with you in part about this. The part that doesn't necassarily sparkle with me is that it's only that Zimmerman has to believe his life is in danger, not that it actually is. As there are many people out there that are just plainly irrational, I would hate to think that my life hangs in the balance of them not knowing what is real danger.

..and I'm not really saying that this necassarily pertains to this case. To me it's still a toss up, ties goes to the defendant, but Marcia Clark in an interview on CNN said something that should be considered.

EVEN if someone attacks you first, out of malice, but then lets up, YOU as the victim are expected to let up, and if the original attacker then feels that YOU have gotten the upper hand and now THEIR life is in danger after they have let up, technically they now have the right to use lethal force for self defense. So what if in that case, their own fear is irrational, and they were the original attacker? By law they are not guilty of manslaugher or murder.

That's why these Stand Your Ground Laws are bad, IMO, even though the defense chose instead for a simple self-defense claim. The key word though is 'reasonable' and that isn't subjective - that's ultimately up to the jurors to decide if Zimmerman's fear for his life was reasonable. So far, the evidence doesn't show that.

I agree with the assessment that even if someone else hits you first, that doesn't give you the right to kill them, and any fear for your life from being sucker punched in the nose by a teenager you were following at night, even after they tried to run away, is ludicrous, in my opinion. The jurors are going to take that into account, along with the fact the TM wasn't doing anything wrong that night other than walking home. I don't see how the jurors would find GZ's use of lethal force under those conditions as necessary or that he was entitled to do so.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Lincolns mullet

[himher 634]

That's why these Stand Your Ground Laws are bad, IMO, even though the defense chose instead for a simple self-defense claim. The key word though is 'reasonable' and that isn't subjective - that's ultimately up to the jurors to decide if Zimmerman's fear for his life was reasonable. So far, the evidence doesn't show that.

I agree with the assessment that even if someone else hits you first, that doesn't give you the right to kill them, and any fear for your life from being sucker punched in the nose by a teenager you were following at night, even after they tried to run away, is ludicrous, in my opinion. The jurors are going to take that into account, along with the fact the TM wasn't doing anything wrong that night other than walking home. I don't see how the jurors would find GZ's use of lethal force under those conditions as necessary or that he was entitled to do so.

Top category of Uninteresting Post: Where an Illinois liberal explains why stand your ground laws are bad

Edited July 12, 2013 by himher

[lostinblue 1,989]

Top category of Uninteresting Post: Where an Illinois liberal explains why stand your ground laws are bad

The jury will get this case in a few days and the state still has to show a case for the arrest, How long until we gets to some evidence to support the charge?