Zimmerman Trial Live Feed - Day Nine

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Yay Day 9 ! Hooray, Day 9 !!!

Of all the posts to quote in order to make yours, mine was an odd choice.

[RGinWA 816]

GZ confessed to firing his gun at someone and shooting them while actively under attack. Under the law this is not a confession of "murder".

He confessed to a homicide. Homicide is the killing of a natural person by another natural person.

Edited July 5, 2013 by RGinWA

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Because the factual evidence and witness statements (witness: person who was actually there to describe what happened directly before and after the event) made during this trial have not even made a chip in the original statement that the victim was shot while attacking the shooter, which is neither murder nor manslaughter. Unless the prosecution PROVES with real physical evidence that this is not the case this defendant is going to walk.

Another "expert" that has no idea what an affirmative defense is. Zimmermann has to convince the jury by a preponderance of the evidence that he was justified in killing Martin. If he can't do that, then he'll be sent up the river for manslaughter. Thus far, it is not clear that the justification existed. The only person claiming that is Zimmermann. And Zimmermann has already been shown to have been less than truthful. It's not looking good for the chap.

[RGinWA 816]

Because the factual evidence and witness statements (witness: person who was actually there to describe what happened directly before and after the event) made during this trial have not even made a chip in the original statement that the victim was shot while attacking the shooter, which is neither murder nor manslaughter. Unless the prosecution PROVES with real physical evidence that this is not the case this defendant is going to walk.

That's pure speculation and not found in the evidence of this case, because the conviction or innocence will be based on the preponderance of the evidence given to the jury.

In short your opinion is tainted.

Objection sustained...next question.

[himher 634]

He confessed to a homicide. Homicide is the killing of a natural person by another natural person.

I see you corrected your post all on your own. Good job!

[RGinWA 816]

Another "expert" that has no idea what an affirmative defense is. Zimmermann has to convince the jury by a preponderance of the evidence that he was justified in killing Martin. If he can't do that, then he'll be sent up the river for manslaughter. Thus far, it is not clear that the justification existed. The only person claiming that is Zimmermann. And Zimmermann has already been shown to have been less than truthful. It's not looking good for the chap.

My kids call that a personal jinx...lol

I said basically the same thing.

Ah, to be the one eyed men in the kingdom of the blind.

[himher 634]

The ME is a dimwit based on you seeing him take the stand? I'm not sure why that would be?

You are saying that you believe that the ME has disguised himself as a VJ **?

[RGinWA 816]

I see you corrected your post all on your own. Good job!

I posted a response to your response, but didn't correct anything. The human has been murdered correct? That's not been a secret and we know who committed the homicide.

[himher 634]

Another "expert" that has no idea what an affirmative defense is. Zimmermann has to convince the jury by a preponderance of the evidence that he was justified in killing Martin. If he can't do that, then he'll be sent up the river for manslaughter. Thus far, it is not clear that the justification existed. The only person claiming that is Zimmermann. And Zimmermann has already been shown to have been less than truthful. It's not looking good for the chap.

"preponderance of the evidence" is one way yes. I would tend to lean towards "clear and convincing" evidence in this case though

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

Because an affirmative defense requires an assertion of facts beyond those claimed by the plaintiff, generally the party who offers an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof. The standard of proof is typically lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. It can either be proved by clear and convincing evidence or by a preponderance of the evidence.

For the dimmer lights on the street who though they live in Florida and pretend to understand Florida law:

Six years ago in Murray v. State, 937 So.2d 277, 279 (Fla. 4th Dist. 2006), the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Florida ruled that once a defendant in a criminal case has introduced proof that he acted in self-defense the jury is entitled to consider the defense, and the jury may not convict the defendant unless it finds beyond a reasonable that he did not act in self-defense. The Fourth District Court of Appeal stated:

Read it yourself

So you were saying?

Edited July 5, 2013 by himher

[RGinWA 816]

You are saying that you believe that the ME has disguised himself as a VJ **?

Although I don't know how to answer that question based on its sheer lack of intellectual prowess. I could suppose the ME might be in favor of not being included in the group of the person making that inane, yet expected retort.

Get the dictionary out and I'll take a coffee break while you formulate a stunning comeback.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Somehow I don't think they will be getting this ME to diagnose the extent of GZ's injuries from the photos. He's a stickler to the facts. Looks like this might be another bad day for the prosecution.

The defense is absolutely destroying the ME. Putting TM family on plus for the prosecution, The ME is a bad minus for the prosecution

GZ already confessed to murder.

No he confessed to killing TM...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That's pure speculation and not found in the evidence of this case, because the conviction or innocence will be based on the preponderance of the evidence given to the jury.

This is true for the lesser included charge of manslaughter. In order to get a murder two conviction, the prosecution will have to prove that Zimmermann acted with a depraved mind and disregard for human life. That's probably as steep climb for the prosecution as it is for this defendant to get out of a manslaughter conviction.

[himher 634]

I posted a response to your response, but didn't correct anything. The human has been murdered correct? That's not been a secret and we know who committed the homicide.

You definitely switched from "murder" to "homicide"

Most people use the words "murder" and "homicide" interchangeably, but they are not the same. Although murder and homicide are both used to describe the act of killing another human being, the circumstances surrounding the charges are different.

The easiest way to describe the differences between murder and homicide is that homicide is the killing of another human being, while murder requires the intent to kill another human being. Homicide can be used to describe any death where another person is at fault, but there are mitigating circumstances that can influence the charge of homicide. When someone is convicted of murder, however, they are not only convicted of a homicide, but also the malicious intent to kill.

[himher 634]

Although I don't know how to answer that question based on its sheer lack of intellectual prowess. I could suppose the ME might be in favor of not being included in the group of the person making that inane, yet expected retort.

Get the dictionary out and I'll take a coffee break while you formulate a stunning comeback.

No stunning comeback needed in this case. See Post 43

On the other issue since I was posting to bigTard and using your stunning intellectual prowess which is more likely:

1. I called bigTard a dimwit

2. I called myself a dimwit when I was posting an answer to bigTard

3. I called the ME a dimwit when I was posting an answer to bigTard

Now (I) will get some coffee while you formulate an stunning comeback

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The ME is a bad minus for the prosecution.

How is that? This ME is testifying to the cause of death and other related matters determined based on the autopsy. He's delivering fact based testimony. How is that a minus for the prosecution? You must be watching a different trial.