Zimmerman Trial Live Feed - Day Nine

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

The talking heads at CNN, just said the cross on the ME is a disaster for the prosecution and an experience ME who has testified many times should know

better.

The conclusion of the group was that should have ended their case with the TM family testimony. The said basically that they had a high not kind of warm fuzzy with the TM family, and they ruined it with all the drama of the ME debacle.

[himher 634]

The talking heads at CNN, just said the cross on the ME is a disaster for the prosecution and an experience ME who has testified many times should know

better.

The conclusion of the group was that should have ended their case with the TM family testimony. The said basically that they had a high not kind of warm fuzzy with the TM family, and they ruined it with all the drama of the ME debacle.

Yeah he's in for a long afternoon at this rate

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

"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?

Zimmermann has not delivered any proof that he acted justifiably in self defense. I suppose the defense will try and put that Potemkin village up once it is their turn but thus far, there isn't a shred of evidence beyond Zimmermann's claim that he acted in self defense. If the jury is convinced that he was not justified (there's no "reasonable doubt standard on this determination) in using deadly force, then he'll is to be found guilty.

[RGinWA 816]

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.

Thanks for proving my point.

GZ own act of firing a weapon at 2-4 inches away from the victim into the chest. (while avoiding his own arm being shot as he stated. Which shows a measure of planning and control over the location of the shot.) This fact by itself of choosing where to inflict the wound should constitute murder, because a leg, torso, shoulder or waring shot could have been chosen as well as avoiding his own body parts.

Plus if TM saw the weapon and his hand was on the weapon how come no powder burns? Why the clear shot. If GZ's arm was in the way it means his hand was on GZ because it's his left hand? Facts don't add up, plus if they are as GZ states he had options other than a chest wound.

Thus that would mean the INTENT of killing another human being.

Shooting into the chest is not usually considered by any sane person a defensive wound. Especially when other parts of the body could have been selected.

State rests...

[lostinblue 1,989]

Can we say..................

[RGinWA 816]

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

See, I gave you time and you wasted the opportunity counselor.

Name calling is always the last vestige of those with little to add to the debate.

I yield the remainder of my time...

[himher 634]

Zimmermann has not delivered any proof that he acted justifiably in self defense. I suppose the defense will try and put that Potemkin village up once it is their turn but thus far, there isn't a shred of evidence beyond Zimmermann's claim that he acted in self defense. If the jury is convinced that he was not justified (there's no "reasonable doubt standard on this determination) in using deadly force, then he'll is to be found guilty.

Your words: (there's no "reasonable doubt standard on this determination)

Established Florida case law: and the jury may not convict the defendant unless it finds beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense

Do you get the difference between the two statements? Which opinion do you believe applies to this case? Yours or the Florida Appeals Court?

I yield the remainder of my time...

Smart move!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'll enjoy your all's meltdown when Zimmermann is booked into the state facilities to pay for his crime. It might be similarly hilarious to observe as the meltdown you suffered after Obama did not actually lose in a landslide but rather won in one. I'm looking really forward to it.

[RGinWA 816]

The hands not being bagged is a red herring.

GZ claims those are his screams correct? If he's screaming how is he being suffocated and need to shoot TM? Because the screams stop at the gunshot on tape.

If it's not his screams TM is screaming for help and ends at the gunshot.

There's no need to even have the hand evidence because of the audio evidence.

The ME already stipulated what everyone knows; TM was killed by a wound to the chest.

The rest is window dressing.

In my opinion DNA evidence can be thrown out and he'd be convicted on the audio evidence alone not fitting the defendants story.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Bao: "Before I come here I spend hundreds of hours reviewing notes and photos, but no independent memory."

[himher 634]

I'll enjoy your all's meltdown when Zimmermann is booked into the state facilities to pay for his crime. It might be similarly hilarious to observe as the meltdown you suffered after Obama did not actually lose in a landslide but rather won in one. I'm looking really forward to it.

Not nearly as enjoyable as your meltdown when the gun control legislation crashed and burned. A second term did not come with a mandate to get anything done either as it turns out LOL

Edited July 5, 2013 by himher

[himher 634]

The hands not being bagged is a red herring.

GZ claims those are his screams correct? If he's screaming how is he being suffocated and need to shoot TM? Because the screams stop at the gunshot on tape.

If it's not his screams TM is screaming for help and ends at the gunshot.

There's no need to even have the hand evidence because of the audio evidence.

The ME already stipulated what everyone knows; TM was killed by a wound to the chest.

The rest is window dressing.

In my opinion DNA evidence can be thrown out and he'd be convicted on the audio evidence alone not fitting the defendants story.

If you throw out the eyewitness testimony with the DNA evidence then yes you can probably convict him

[RGinWA 816]

I'll enjoy your all's meltdown when Zimmermann is booked into the state facilities to pay for his crime. It might be similarly hilarious to observe as the meltdown you suffered after Obama did not actually lose in a landslide but rather won in one. I'm looking really forward to it.

How is this a liberal or a conservative issue? I don't get that.

I thought conservatives were for jury's and laws being followed like liberals?

It's almost like because a gun was at the root of the death it must be defended? If he was stabbed to death I don't know if anyone would be so quick to dismiss the charges.

The fact is that there is enough evidence to stand trial and if not, they should think about freeing tens of thousands who are convicted by just the mere fact they have survived the altercation and the other human has not.

If you throw out the eyewitness testimony with the DNA evidence then yes you can probably convict him

Wait, the DNA evidence is staked against GZ and there is no eye witness to the shooting? Well, except the survivor.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Not nearly as enjoyable as your meltdown when the gun control legislation crashed and burned.

I did not have any meltdown. Don't remember any meltdown here on this board resulting from that event.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

How is this a liberal or a conservative issue? I don't get that.

I thought conservatives were for jury's and laws being followed like liberals?

It's almost like because a gun was at the root of the death it must be defended? If he was stabbed to death I don't know if anyone would be so quick to dismiss the charges.

The fact is that there is enough evidence to stand trial and if not, they should think about freeing tens of thousands who are convicted by just the mere fact they have survived the altercation and the other human has not.

It's not a liberal vs. conservative issue. I just used the other event as a point of reference where we had hilarious breakdowns here on VJ.