Trayvon Martin Case

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

Lol. When anything is possible... look up what reasonable doubt is, and which side it favors in this case.

So basically all you have, saden, is to try demonizing everything Zimmerman did. "He watched a stranger with the same demographic as previous criminals in that area! He got out of his car! He didn't identify himself! (nevermind you don't even know if this is true or not) He said everything was god's plan! Oh the horror! He's a monster! Guilty! Guilty!"



I know this will fly over your head, saden, because JoeR has explained this numerous times to you. But just for anyone else reading this: This is a traditional self defense case. Defendant has to make a prima facie case that self-defense was possible. (on the face of things, the self defence claim is plausible). If the defense provides evidence that is the case, it's up to the prosecution to prove that it was not a case of self defense. If there is reasonable doubt that the defendant committed a crime, the verdict should be not guilty, as is normal in criminal cases.

The defense in pre-trial, and the prosecution and defense in court, provide plenty of evidence that self defense was a possibility in this case. Not just "anything could happen", but for example the injuries to Zimmerman (and no injuries from fisticuffs to Martin), eyewitness accounts placing Zimmerman under Martin, Zimmerman's statements (and just look at the situation. For example: If Zimmerman wanted to shoot Martin from the get-go, why did he call 911?)

So the burden of proof is on the prosecution here, to prove manslaughter or murder. Watch the prosecution's closing statement. All they did was cast reasonable doubt on Zimmerman's claims. If the burden of proof was on the defense, this would be a slam-dunk case for the prosecution. But the burden of proof is on the prosecution. And the prosecution put forward nothing that they proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Their theories are no more proven that your idea that Zimmerman ran up to Martin and pistol whipped him (after putting on a white hood, I assume), or that Martin threw the first punch on the "creepy ass cracker". Reasonable doubt means the prosecution has to prove their side more than "anything could have happened".

After Casey Anthony, OJ, the first Rodney King trial, who knows what the jury will do. But barring any new info, murder2 is a joke. Manslaughter depends on what you think of Zimmerman (and how high standard you think reasonable doubt is). A civil action (wrongful death?) is a possibility with a lower standard to prove than manslaughter.

But the comments by some people here... are more embarrassing than Martin's friend's testimony was. Seriously, can you imagine if she said in court what RGIII, saden, and gary84 have said here?

This is anything but traditional because the actual aggressor and provoker here is the one claiming self defense. Also strange is the fact the one claiming self defense was the ONLY one armed. The actually person provoked never had a weapon of any kind...nothing...bat, gun, knife, etc....just skittles. Also non traditional is the fact the one claiming self defense is a larger and older adult against a smaller, kid.

Rarely you see an older, larger, armed person running up on a smaller, unarmed, child claiming self defense after he has shot and killed the teenager.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

This is anything but traditional because the actual aggressor and provoker here is the one claiming self defense. Also strange is the fact the one claiming self defense was the ONLY one armed. The actually person provoked never had a weapon of any kind...nothing...bat, gun, knife, etc....just skittles. Also non traditional is the fact the one claiming self defense is a larger and older adult against a smaller, kid.

Rarely you see an older, larger, armed person running up on a smaller, unarmed, child claiming self defense after he has shot and killed the teenager.

Zimmerman's story is incredible! I literally have to suspend my common sense to believe anything Zimmerman said. Even more incredible is the incompetence and depraved malice displayed by members of the warpath.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by saden1

Zimmerman's story is incredible! I literally have to suspend my common sense to believe anything Zimmerman said. Even more incredible is the incompetence and depraved malice displayed by members of the warpath.

Like not understanding reasonable doubt, and being so certain that someone should be convicted because of a lack of evidence? Yes, your depravity amazes me. Your incompetence, well not surprised there since our debates on soda bans and other stuff.

edit: Not to mention the depravity on goading betting in a murder trial. Kind of macabre if you ask me.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

Zimmerman's story is incredible! I literally have to suspend my common sense to believe anything Zimmerman said. Even more incredible is the incompetence and depraved malice displayed by members of the warpath.

To any objective individual, my alternate explanation of what might have occurred that evening is no more incredible than yours where you assume malice by GZ at every instance.

The only incompetence is yours in your idiotic attempt to manipulate the law contrary to the written jury instructions so that it fits your version of events. As for depraved malice, your twisted, prejudiced mind will clearly find malice in any one who fails to accept the world according to saden1.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

This is anything but traditional because the actual aggressor and provoker here is the one claiming self defense.

No, if the defendant was the actual aggressor and provoker, it would be a traditional FAILED claim of self defense. I'm saying this is not the new "stand your ground" case where the burden of proof is on the defense, it's the traditional "self defence" where once the possibility of actual self defence is established, the burden is on the prosecution.

Which again raises the point, how do you know in this case which was the actual attacker and aggressor? Those in the court case would like to know what you do, because neither side had evidence to "know" that. (other than what Zimmerman said, but he's the one on trial.)

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Also strange is the fact the one claiming self defense was the ONLY one armed. The actually person provoked never had a weapon of any kind...nothing...bat, gun, knife, etc....just skittles.

So if someone is armed, they can't use the weapon to defend themselves? Muggers attacking anyone weaker than they are, will be overjoyed by this news.

And again someone lists the skittles in their argument. I'm sure numerous criminals and victims have had M&Ms, Tootsie Rolls, and Pepsi on them when a crime has occurred. What is this fetish people have about skittles?

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Also non traditional is the fact the one claiming self defense is a larger and older adult against a smaller, kid.

Define "larger". Martin was taller and probably in much better shape. Unless Martin was obese.

And "kid" again? Does this look like a "kid"? Martin was 17. If he was arrested the day of the incident, for assault or whatever just saying, he would have been charged as an adult.


(teen in the middle)

Teen, yes. Young man, yes. "Kid"? No. Just to put this in perspective, do you think "kids" killed Sean Taylor? Should they not be tried as adults?

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Rarely you see an older, larger, armed person running up on a smaller, unarmed, child claiming self defense after he has shot and killed the teenager.

I'm willing to bet lots of older people have filed self defence claims against younger people even though only the older person was armed, seeing how it's teen males that commit a plurality of violent crimes. Again you're calling the shorter, more out of shape guy the "larger" guy.

And how do you know Zimmerman actually "ran up" to Martin? Please tell CNN, because the prosecution and defense both missed what you found out.

"CHILD"? Did I post pictures of a "child" up there? Again, to keep perspective in this case, did "children" kill Sean Taylor?